The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration should approve the application of Kindred Hospitals East, LLC, for a Certificate of Need to establish a 60-bed, long- term care hospital ("LTCH") to be located in Brevard County, one of four counties in AHCA District 7.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Kindred Hospitals East, LLC, ("Kindred" or the "Applicant") is a subsidiary of Kindred Healthcare, Inc. ("Kindred Healthcare"). Kindred Healthcare operates 84 LTCHs nationwide, including eight in the State of Florida. Twenty-four of Kindred Healthcare's LTCHs are operated by Kindred Hospitals East, LLC, including the eight in Florida. The Agency is the state agency responsible for the administration of the Certificate of Need program in Florida. See § 408.034(1), Fla. Stat., et seq. Pre-hearing Stipulation The Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation between Kindred Hospitals East, LLC, and Agency for Health Care Administration, filed May 25, 2006, contains the following: E. STATEMENT OF FACTS WHICH AREADMITTED AND WILL REQUIRE NO PROOF The CON application filed by Kindred complies with the application content and review process requirements of Sections 408.037 and 408.039, Florida Statutes (2005), and Rule 59C- 1.008, Florida Administrative Code, and the Agency's review of the application complied with the review process requirements of the above-referenced Statutes and Rule. With respect to compliance with Section 408.035(3), Florida Statutes (2005), it is agreed that Kindred has the ability to provide a quality program based on the descriptions of the program in its CON application and based on the operational facilities of the applicant and/or of the applicant's parent facilities which are JCAHO certified. With respect to compliance with Section 408.035(4), Florida Statutes (2005), it is agreed that Kindred has the ability to provide the necessary resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation. With respect to compliance with Section 408.035(6), Florida Statutes (2005)it is agreed that the project is likely to be financially feasible. The parties agree there are no disputed issues with respect to Kindred's compliance with Section 408.035(8), Florida Statutes (2005), which relates to an applicant's proposed costs and methods of proposed construction for the type of project proposed. The parties agree there are no disputed issues with respect to Kindred's compliance with Section 408.035(9), Florida Statutes (2005), which relates to an applicant's proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Section 408.035(10), Florida Statutes (2005), relating to nursing home beds, is not at issue with respect to the review of Kindred's CON application. With respect to compliance with Rule 59C-1.008(1)(a)-(c), Florida Administrative Code, it is agreed that Kindred complied with the letter of intent requirements contained therein. 9. Rules 59C-1.008(1)(d), (e), (h), (i), and (j) are not at issue with respect to the review of Kindred's CON applications. With respect to compliance with Rule 59C-1.008(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, it is agreed that Kindred complied with the applicable certificate of need application submission requirements contained therein. The need assessment methodology is governed by Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2.a.- d., Florida Administrative Code. With respect to Rule 59C-1.008(2), Florida Administrative Code, except as to Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2.a-d and (2)(e)3, Florida Administrative Code, it is agreed that this provision is not applicable to this proceeding, as the Agency did not at the time of the review cycle at issue, and currently does not, calculate a fixed need pool for LTCH beds. With respect to compliance with Rule 59C-1.008(3), Florida Administrative Code, it is agreed that Kindred submitted the required filing fees. With respect to compliance with Rule 59C-1.008(4)(a)-(e), Florida Administrative Code, it is agreed that Kindred complied with the certificate of need application requirements contained therein. Rule 59C-1.008(5), Florida Administrative Code, relating to identifiable portions of a project, is not at issue with respect to the review of Kindred's CON applications. In light of the stipulation, the issues remaining generally concern: the need for Kindred's proposed facility (including the reasonableness of Kindred's need methodology and whether its need assessment conforms to AHCA rules), the accessibility of existing LTCH facilities, and the extent to which the proposal will foster competition that fosters cost-effectiveness and quality. Long-Term Care Services The length of stay in the typical acute care hospital (a "short-term hospital" or a "STACH") for most patients is four to five days. Some hospital patients, however, are in need of acute care services on a long-term basis, that is, much longer than the average lengths of stay for most patients in an short-term hospital. Patients appropriate for LTCH services represent a small but discrete sub-set of all inpatients. They are differentiated from other hospital patients. Typically, they have multiple co-morbidities that require concurrent treatment. Patients appropriate for LTCH services tend to be elderly and frail, unless they are victims of severe trauma. All LTCH patients are generally medically complex and frequently catastrophically ill. Generally, Medicare patients admitted to LTCHs have been transferred from short-term hospitals. At the LTCH, they receive a range of services, including cardiac monitoring, ventilator support, and wound care. Existing LTCHs in District 7 At the time of the CON application there were 12 LTCHs operating in Florida with a total licensed bed capacity of 805 beds. There is one existing LTCH within District 7. Another is approved and under construction. Select Specialty Hospital-Orlando, Inc. ("Select-Orlando") contains 35 beds; it was licensed in 2003. The occupancy rate for this facility for CY 2005 was 73.57 percent. Select-Orlando's history shows few discharges to Brevard County. The majority of its discharges are to Orange, Seminole, and Osceola Counties. Most of the balance are to Volusia, Lake, and Polk Counties. A second LTCH, Select Specialty-Orange, Inc., has been approved and is under construction. It will contain 40 beds. The total licensed capacity of these two LTCHs will be 75 beds. Both of the facilities are located in Orange County and are located in or near Orlando within a few miles of each other. The acuity levels of the patients in the existing LTCH are not known. There are no LTCHs in Brevard County where Kindred proposes to build and operate a new LTCH should its application be approved. Kindred's Proposal Kindred's proposal in Brevard County, AHCA District 7, is for a freestanding 60-bed LTCH, with all private rooms, including an 8-bed intensive care unit (ICU). The proposed LTCH will follow a care model template that is similar to Kindred's other LTCHs. It will be a freestanding, licensed, certified and accredited acute-care hospital with an independent self-governed medical staff under the same model as a short-term acute hospital. The majority of patients in an LTCH typically arrive after discharge from a short-term acute care hospital, most often ending their STACH stay in an ICU. Not surprisingly, Kindred projects that its proposed LTCH will receive the bulk of its referrals from STACHs in the surrounding area. Kindred's LTCH patients will be discharged to either their homes, home health care, or to another post-acute provider on the basis of patient needs, family preference, and geography. There are several levels of care provided within an LTCH such as Kindred's proposed facility. Typically, LTCHs accept stable medical patients but with catastrophically ill patients some are bound to become medically unstable. There are eight ICU beds for the medically unstable patient. Thus, Kindred's patients who undergo changes of condition (such as becoming medically unstable) can be cared for without a transfer, unlike in skilled nursing facilities or comprehensive medical rehabilitation hospitals facilities not suited for the medically unstable patient. The goal of an LTCH is to take acute care hospital patients and provide them with a higher level of medical rehabilitation than they would receive in an STACH, and rehabilitate them so that they can be transferred home, or to a rehab hospital, or to a nursing facility. The "medical rehabilitation" of an LTCH addresses system failures and dependence on machines. This is different from the rehabilitation that takes place in an inpatient or outpatient rehab center, where patients usually have suffered an injury or trauma to a muscular or bone system, and their care is based on physical medicine rather than internal medicine. The Orlando Metropolitan Area and Brevard County In evaluating markets that may need an LTCH, Kindred looks at established metropolitan areas the boundaries of which are determined on the basis of population concentrations and commuting data. District 7 contains most of the metropolitan area associated with the city of Orlando (the "Orlando Metropolitan Area"). Like District 7, the Orlando Metropolitan Area has a presence in four counties. But the counties are different. The Orlando Metropolitan Area encompasses all or part of Orange, Osceola, Seminole, (shared with AHCA District 7) and a county that is not in District 7: Lake County. In addition to the three counties it shares with the Orlando Metropolitan Area, District 7 includes Brevard County. At hearing, Mr. Wurdock explained the following about the Orlando Metropolitan Area: When we talk about the Orlando area, we are not just talking about Orange County. Orange County, Osceola County, and Seminole County are all part of the Orlando metro area. That means they're an integrated economic unit based on commuting patterns. Lake County is also part of [the Orlando metropolitan area.] . . . [W]hen we looked at . . . Orange, Osceola and Seminole and ran an analysis . . ., we found . . . there was a need for approximately 180 more beds beyond the . . . 35 that currently existed. So even after you take out the 40 under construction, there is still a really huge need [in the Orlando metropolitan area.] Tr. 56-57. That Brevard County is not part of the Orlando Metropolitan Area is a consideration in this case. Kindred's evaluation also showed two other factors about Brevard County that distinguish it from the Orlando Metropolitan Area. First, it does not have adequate access to long-term care hospitals. Second, it's population with a significant number of seniors and a high number of discharges from STACHs makes it one of the few markets of its size that does not have at least one LTCH. As Mr. Wurdock continued at hearing: Brevard County has a population of more than a million people and it's got more than 100,000 seniors and they have six short term hospitals that produce more than 60,000 discharges a year. . . . [T]here are very few markets of that size in this country that do not have at least one long term hospital . . . Tr. 57. These two factors led Kindred to pursue the application that is the subject of this proceeding. Kindred's decision to pursue a CON for an LTCH in District 7 also stemmed from the interest of Brevard County physicians who had referred patients to Kindred facilities in Fort Lauderdale and Green Cove Springs in Duval County, a government unit consolidated with the city of Jacksonville. This interest was also supported by evidence that showed a predominate north/south referral pattern along the I-95 corridor. Patients in Brevard County STACHs appropriate for LTCH services are referred to facilities in Duval County (north) and Fort Lauderdale (south), but generally not to the lone District 7 LTCH in Orlando. The number of short-term acute hospitals in an area affects the decision of whether to locate a facility in a particular market. The presence of STACHs in a market is significant because the vast majority of an LTCH's patients are transfers from STACHs. The growing senior population (persons aged 65 and over) in Brevard County was also a factor; the elderly population is a large constituent of an LTCH's patient base. Dr. Richard Baney, who practices with Melbourne Internal Medicine Associates, the largest physician- practice group in Brevard County, holds privileges at Holmes Regional Medical Center, and is familiar with the various health care facilities of all types in Brevard County, including hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, and nursing homes. Dr. Baney anticipates serving as either an attending or consulting physician if the Kindred facility in Brevard is approved, as do several of the other physicians in his group, including some "intensivists" such as pulmonologists, critical-care physicians, and cardiologists. Dr. Baney's physician group consists of 45 primary care physicians, including internists, family practitioners and pediatricians. The group also includes OB/GYNs, neurologists, medical sub-specialists such as cardiologists, pulmonologists, endocrinologists, hematologists, and oncologists. Among the oncologists are radiological oncologists. There are general surgeons in the group, surgery sub-specialists, including vascular surgeons, and ENT (ear, nose, and throat) physicians. Dr. Baney summed up his opinion on the need for an LTCH in Brevard County as follows: In our area we have excellent acute- care hospitals, and we have a good network located throughout the area of subacute rehab facilities, as well as nursing homes, and then home care, and then eventually a patient is home. What we don't have in this area is a long-term acute-care facility that would handle the more significantly ill patients who need more intensive medical and nursing and physical therapy support. Right now those patients that would normally benefit from this type of facility have to dwell in the hospital for . . . weeks and weeks at a time until they achieve a point of stability where they can be moved into a subacute rehab. What this does in turn is clog up the hospital beds, ICU beds in particular, and every year we have at our large acute-care hospitals here at Holmes patients who are being quartered in the . . . auditorium at the hospital, in the hallways of the emergency room, since the hospital gets just overwhelmed with patients and cannot move them out. Certainly I believe a facility in this area would have no trouble being able to fill that need of taking many of these patients who need this kind of care out of the [STACH] into a better, more efficient setting. Also, we don't have any place that's nearby that patients and their families can go for this kind of care. . . . [I]t's really not logistically feasible for patients and their families to go 80, 90 miles away or further to . . . have their care for this type of duration. Kindred No. 7, Deposition of Richard Baney, Jr., M.D., at 10-11. When asked about the difficulty presented by the distance to the LTCHs in Fort Lauderdale and Duval County, Dr. Baney answered with regard to one of his patients that administratively there a few if any problems. The problem is for the family: But the family was very hesitant to allow their father to be transported . . . 150, 180 miles away and be there for weeks or months while they were recovering. They were quite resistant to the idea of him so far away, since the family would have to travel back and forth. Eventually they overcame that and the patient did go . . . to the facility down south. * * * But it was quite a hurdle that we had to get over. Id., p. 16, 17. Aside from the logistical problems faced by the families whose loved one is a potential patient at an LTCH at great distance from home, Dr. Baney's testimony accentuates another factor faced by potential LTCH patient in Brevard County. This is a factor favoring approval of an LTCH application recently recognized by AHCA when it approved Select-Orange, a second LTCH in the Orlando Metropolitan Area dominated by two large hospital organizations. Similar to the Orlando area, Brevard County STACHs, for the most part, belong to one of two hospital organizations predominate in the area. Brevard County's Two Main Hospital Organizations There are two main hospital organizations in Brevard County: the Health First system and the Wuesthoff system. Health First includes Holmes Regional Medical Center; Palm Bay Community Hospital, which is about 90 beds; and Cape Canaveral Hospital, which is also about 90 beds, in the central part of the county. Palm Bay is a large community about 15 miles south of Melbourne. Cape Canaveral is about 20 miles from Melbourne, and Rockledge is about 15 miles from Melbourne. The Wuesthoff system consists of Wuesthoff Rockledge and Wuesthoff Melbourne. Wuesthoff Rockledge is a 267-bed acute care facility with 32 ICU beds, 8 cardiac surgery beds, and an active emergency room that sees about 1,500 visits a month. Wuesthoff Melbourne is a 115-bed facility with a 12-bed ICU and an active ER of around 800 visits a month. Wuesthoff currently refers LTCH patients- primarily long-term ventilator patients-to Kindred's facilities in Fort Lauderdale and near Jacksonville. When Wuesthoff refers a patient to Kindred, it calls Kindred's intake coordinator who journeys to Wuesthoff to review the patient's records, meet with the family, and determine if the patient can be placed. Only if a physician from the LTCH signs an admission order concurring that the patient is clinically appropriate for admission to an LTCH is the patient transferred. Often, however, because the Kindred facilities are so far away, just as Dr. Baney pointed out, the families do not want to move the patient out of Wuesthoff. This resistance continues despite increased education about the benefit of LTCHs to potential LTCH patients. LTCH Education When an LTCH comes into a market, an education process begins. It begins with the physicians, and with the case managers and social workers in the STACH. Kindred educates these professionals about what an LTCH is, what its services are, and where it fits into the continuum of care. Kindred's Admission and Patient Evaluation Processes Kindred does not admit every patient that falls within the diagnoses that might produce LTCH-appropriate patients. Patients are pre-assessed before admission using what is nationally known as Interqual criteria for hospital admissions. That set of criteria is based on severity of the patient's illness and the intensity of services required to treat the patient, and then a review committee at the LTCH makes a clinical determination whether or not the patient is appropriate for LTCH services. The sole way that a patient gets referred to a Kindred Hospital is through a physician order. Before a patient comes to a Kindred Hospital, a physician has determined that to the best of his or her judgment the patient requires continued care at the level of an acute care hospital and that the patient's course of treatment will be prolonged. A physician from a Kindred Hospital must write the admission order, concurring that it is appropriate for that patient to be in an LTCH. Prior to obtaining that physician order, potential candidates for transfer are identified through the STACH case management staff, with the assistance of the LTCH staff. The STACH medical staff, nurses, or other personnel initiate the request for Kindred to visit the patient, interview the family, talk with the STACH attending physician, and make a determination of whether transfer and care at Kindred is clinically appropriate. Kindred gathers information on a potential patient to assist in making the admission determination using individuals in the field known as "clinical liaisons," who are primarily licensed registered nurses. The clinical liaison gathers the information, but does not make the ultimate determination as to whether to admit the patient to a Kindred facility. The ultimate determination for admission is made by the physician who will be seeing the patient at the Kindred facility. In order to comply with Medicare reimbursement requirements, Kindred employs such safeguards to make sure only appropriate patients are admitted. Medicare reviews the patients treated into the hospital, and it can and does reduce payment for "short stay outliers" who do not stay at least five-sixths of the geometric mean of the length of stay (GMLOS) for the patient's diagnosis. Mathematically, however, LTCHs will always have some patients who are short stay outliers. Even if GMLOSs rise as result of the elimination of short stay patients, between 35 and 40 percent of patients will always be "short stay outliers" under CMS's current definition. They will just be hospitalized for a stay that is short relative to a longer length of stay. Kindred LTCHs utilize criteria that assure that patients, once admitted, have sufficient severity of illness and need sufficient intensity of service to continue to warrant acute care. Case managers in LTCHs apply discharge screens to patients as they near completion of their LTCH care plan to help physicians make a judgment of when they are ready to be transferred either home or to a lower level of post-acute care. Kindred's CON application included a utilization review plan, using an example from Kindred Hospital North Florida. Every hospital has a utilization review plan designed to assure that appropriate care is given to patients. It serves an oversight function for medical care, nursing care, medication administration, and any other area where resources are expended on behalf of the patient. A PPS for LTCHs Effective October 1, 2002, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) established a prospective payment system for LTCHs. Through this system, CMS recognizes the patient population of LTCHs as separate and distinct from the populations treated by providers of short-term acute care or other post short-term acute care providers. Under the system, each patient is assigned an LTCH DRG, indicating that the patient's diagnosis is within a certain Diagnostic Related Group. The LTCH is reimbursed the pre-determined payment rate for that DRG, regardless of the cost of care. The creation of separate DRGs for LTCH patients is the mark of the federal government's recognition of the validity of LTCH services and the distinct place occupied by LTCHs in the continuum of care based on the high level of LTCH patient acuity. Despite this recognition, concerns about the identification of patients that are appropriate for LTCH services have been voiced both at the federal level and at the state level. With the rise in LTCH applications over the last several years, AHCA has been consistent in voicing those concerns, particularly when it comes to LTCH population levels of acuity. Acuity The Agency is not convinced that there is not significant overlap between the LTCH patient population and the population of patients served appropriately in healthcare settings other than LTCHs. The Agency has reached the conclusion that there are options (other than an LTCH in Brevard County) available to patients targeted by Kindred. The options depend on such matters as physician preference and the availability of long-term care hospitals in a given geographic area. Kindred answers the concerns, in part, with evidence that relates to acuity. A "case mix index" for the hospital is a measure of its average resource consumption. Resource consumption can be viewed as a surrogate measure of complexity and severity of illness, so case mix index is often cited as a readily available measure of patient acuity. Using that indicator, the case mix index of Kindred hospitals is high compared to the entire LTCH industry, and is higher than the average case mix index for STACHs. The APR/DRG system is a way to further refine the variation of patients' acuity within a DRG. The system assigns not only a DRG, but a severity of illness on a scale of one (minor severity) to four (extreme severity). Using that tool with the Kindred data base (as well as the federal MedPAR data base) confirms that the distribution of severe and extreme severity of illness is skewed toward LTCH patients, meaning that there are more patients with higher severity of illnesses in LTCHs than in STACHs. As is to be expected, and one would hope if LTCHs are appropriately serving their niche in the continuum of care, this is consistent with the empirical observation that patients in LTCHs, are more sick than those in STACHs. A third measure of patient acuity routinely used in Kindred hospitals is an APACHE score, which is a combination of physiologic derangement and concurrent illnesses. The average Kindred patient has an APACHE score of about 45, whereas the average critical care patient in all STACHs has a score about two-and-a-half points higher. Thus, Kindred's LTCHs treat a severely ill population only a few points, on the APACHE measure, below that of critical care units in STACHs across the country. The Agency does not, by rule or order, define the level of acuity at which LTCH patients should be for admission. Information on acuity level of patients in STACHs is not available through the State's health statistics data base, nor is any information that would allow an LTCH applicant to undertake an acuity analysis of potential patients. AHCA acknowledges that it has no reason to believe that Kindred admits lower-acuity patients with the least need for resources among those in LTCH- appropriate DRGs. Family Hardship In those markets that do not have LTCHs, STACH patients typically have no choice of treatment but to stay in the STACHs, unless they are willing to travel long distances. As Dr. Baney pointed out in his deposition testimony, many patients who could benefit from an LTCH are not inclined to travel long distances. One reason is that the patients' families are not able to commute that distance. If the patient is going to be in an LTCH for weeks or months, it creates a hardship on the family to have their loved one that far away. The family either loses contact with their loved one or they actually have to relocate to where the loved one is and abandon their home temporarily. The need for family presence and involvement is more than just an emotional matter of patient and family preference. Families are involved in the treatment of a patient in a long-term care hospital, not only through their presence in the hospital but also because they will participate in patient care after the patient leaves the LTCH. Families have to learn how to get the patients out of bed, feed them, and possibly suction them. The families would be taught how to care for their family members once they leave the LTCH, by nursing and therapy staff, teaching them exercises for the patient, how to regulate the oxygen, and giving medications. Differences between LTCHs and Other Providers LTCHs and STACHs do not have the same purpose, and the gap is widening between the two. Over the last 20 years, STACHs have evolved into settings that are very good at stabilizing patients, diagnosing their conditions, and developing treatment plans. Most admissions to the medical ward of an STACH come in through the emergency room where patients are so acute, so unstable, that emergency care is required to stabilize the patient. In their role as diagnostic centers, STACHs provide imaging and laboratory services, and then develop a treatment plan based on the diagnostic work-up performed. STACHs have moved away from the function of carrying out a treatment plan. This is borne out by shrinking STACH lengths of stay over the last 20 years, which now average four to six days. As a result, STACHs have limited capability to provide a prolonged treatment plan for patients with multiple co-morbidities. In contrast, LTCHs do not hold themselves out to be diagnostic or stabilization centers. They have developed expertise in caring for the small subset of patients that require a prolonged treatment plan. A multi-disciplinary physician- based care plan is provided in LTCHs that is not provided in STACHs or other post-acute settings. LTCH patients meet hospital level criteria, and if there is no LTCH readily accessible to provide a hospital-level discharge option for these patients, then the STACH has no option but to keep them, and manage their treatment and costs as best they can. LTCHs take care of those patients who need to be in a hospital, but for whom reimbursement is not adequate for STACHs to treat. The reimbursement system is driving this to a great extent, because of the incentives it gives to discharge patients as quickly as possible. Not every STACH patient needs LTCH care; as a rule of thumb, about one percent of all non-obstetric patients are potentially LTCH-appropriate. Ms. Woods, Vice President for Wuesthoff Health System which operates STACHs in Brevard County, testified in deposition that Wuesthoff's ICUs in Wuesthoff hospitals often retain patients who could be placed in an LTCH. As the Wuesthoff ICUs remain full, the ability to move patients through the hospital, from the emergency department through the ICU, is significantly impacted. While long-term care hospitals take a team approach to getting patients weaned from ventilators or getting them to a rehab involvement, an acute care hospital ICU deals more with acute crisis situations, such as an acute MI (myocardial infarction) or an acute blood clot to the lungs, or someone who has acute sepsis or infection. The roles that LTCHs play have a significant impact on acute care hospitals such as Wuesthoff. If an acute care hospital has to maintain a patient for 30 to 60 days on a ventilator in order to get them weaned or to meet their needs, that poses the potential to interfere with the acute care hospital from meeting the needs of the community, such as patients who are coming in the emergency room with acute conditions. Most of the stays in Wuesthoff's ICU beds, for example, are five to seven days; they are trauma patients, surgery patients that need support and critical care, and patients coming in with major infections. When ICU beds are unavailable, these patients are being held in the emergency departments; it stops the patient flow if the beds in a community hospital are taken up from a long-term ventilator patient. SNFs and LTCHs are different both in intent and execution. SNFs are appropriate for patients whose primary needs are nursing, who are stable and unlikely to change, and who do not require very much medical intervention. Conversely, LTCHs, being licensed and accredited as acute care hospitals, are appropriate when daily medical intervention is required. LTCHs are able to respond to changes in conditions and changes in care plans much better than SNFs because LTCHs have access to diagnostics, laboratory, radiology, and pharmacy services. Further, there are no skilled nursing facilities in Brevard County that operate beds for ventilator dependent patients, nor are there hospital-based skilled nursing units ("HBSNUs"). Using Kindred's own nursing data base, which consists of 250 SNFs across the country, and Kindred's LTCH data base, consisting of 75 LTCHs, Kindred has discovered that that overlap in patient condition is very small. Where there is overlap, it tends to be at the ends of care in LTCHs and the beginning of care in SNFs. This progression makes sense, since SNFs are a common discharge destination for LTCH patients. LTCHs and rehab hospitals are also distinctly different. Rehab hospitals are geared for people with primarily neurologic or musculoskeletal orthopedic issues, and are driven with a care model based on physical medicine rather than internal medicine; LTCH care requires the oversight of an internist rather than a physical medicine doctor. While rehab is a concurrent component of LTCH care, the patient in an LTCH cannot tolerate the three hours per day of therapy required for admission to rehab hospitals due to their medical conditions. In fact, a common continuum of care is for an LTCH patient to receive treatment and improve to the point where they can tolerate three hours of rehab and so be transferred to a rehab hospital. There is one acute rehab center in Brevard County, and it does not take ventilator-dependent patients. There are no hospital based skilled nursing units in Brevard County. There are no skilled nursing facilities in Brevard County that can accommodate ventilator-independent patients. Often ventilator-dependent patients also have IV antibiotics and tube feedings, and these are complicated conditions that a nursing home will not treat. LTCH care cannot be provided through home health care, because, by definition, LTCH patients meet criteria for inpatient hospitalization. Home health care is designed for patients who are very stable and have such a limited medical need that it can be administrated by a visiting nurse or by families. This is in sharp contrast to an LTCH patient where many hours a day of nursing, respiratory, and other therapies are required under the direct care of a physician. On the basis of regulation alone, STACHs could provide LTCH care. They generally do not do so because they have evolved into centers of stabilization, diagnosis, and initiating a treatment plan. Case studies bear out that when patients who made very little progress in STACHs are transferred to LTCHs, where the multidisciplinary approach takes over from the diagnostic focus, the patients improve in both medical and physical well-being. Those patients that would normally benefit from an LTCH have to dwell in the hospital for weeks until they achieve a point of stability where they can be moved in to a subacute facility; instead of continuing to move efficiently down the continuum they remain in the "upper end of the stream." This, in turn, may overwhelm the short-term acute care hospital, particularly in its ICU, resulting in patients being quartered in the auditorium at the hospital and in the hallways of the emergency room. The LTCHs available along the east coast of Florida in Fort Lauderdale or Jacksonville are at a distance from Brevard County that is an obstacle to referral of a Brevard County patient. Having a long-term care hospital in Brevard County would enhance the continuum of services available to Brevard County residents. On the other end of the referral process from Dr. Baney is Rita DeArmond, the clinical liaison for Kindred Hospital Fort Lauderdale. Her duties include, "patient evaluations on potential admissions to [Kindred Fort Lauderdale], which also involves meeting with families and educating the families, . . . case managers, . . . physicians and other people in the community about our hospital and long-term acute care hospitals in general." Kindred No. 8, at 5. She serves "Palm Beach County, the area around Lake Okeechobee [Okeechobee and Hendry Counties], Martin County, . . ., St. Lucie County, Indian River County and Brevard County." Id. at 11. In Ms. DeArmond's experience in dealing with potential long-term care hospital patients and their families not in the immediate vicinity of an LTCH, the willingness of those patients to travel great distances is the biggest hurdle for the patients admission to an LTCH. Most of the patients and their spouses are elderly, and they do not tend to travel long distances, or on the interstate. Being faced with traveling hundreds of miles round-trip to visit a loved one is very distressing to most of them. Not only would potential Brevard County LTCH patients be more likely to avail themselves of LTCH services if there were an LTCH in Brevard County but so would patients in other counties. For example, according to Ms. DeArmond, Lawnwood Regional Medical Center in Fort Pierce, a St. Lucie County STACH, and Sebastian River Medical Center, an STACH in Indian River County, would definitely send potential LTCH patients to an LTCH in Brevard County rather than the current closest LTCH, Kindred Fort Lauderdale. Having an LTCH would be a positive impact for other Brevard County STACHs as well. For example, Wuesthoff would not experience the backup in its emergency department and in its ICU beds, especially in the winter time where there is a high census due to more cases of pneumonia in the winter. If a patient who might be clinically appropriate for an LTCH remains in the ICU in an acute care hospital such as Wuesthoff, that patient does not receive the same care that he or she would receive at an LTCH. Acute care hospitals do not provide the medical rehabilitation work that LTCH's do, such as a plan of care just for the rehab of ventilator patients. An acute care hospital can deal with the pneumonia, and can wean the patient, but does not have the same plans or care or the same focus that an LTCH does with those types of patients. If the patient does not go to an LTCH, they will stay in the acute care hospital using the hospital resources. Wuesthoff has had patients there up to 65 days. The hospitals and physicians visited by Kindred- Fort Lauderdale clinical liaison Ms. DeArmond on a regular basis are located in Brevard County in District 7, as well as Indian River and St. Lucie counties. The hospitals within Brevard County that she contacts include Holmes Regional and Wuesthoff Melbourne Hospital; within Indian River County, Indian River Memorial Hospital in Vero Beach and Sebastian River Medical Center, and within St. Lucie County, St. Lucie Medical Center in Port St. Lucie and Lawnwood Hospital in Fort Pierce. In gathering letters of support that were submitted with Kindred's CON application for a long-term care hospital in Brevard County, Ms. DeArmond met with case managers and physicians and informed them of Kindred's intention to apply for a CON to build a hospital in Brevard County. The physicians and case managers who provided letters of support had previously referred patients to Kindred Hospital in Fort Lauderdale, so they were familiar with the services that Kindred can offer in an LTCH. It is reasonable to assume that such physicians and case managers would refer patients to a Kindred LTCH in Brevard County, if approved. MedPAC Concerns In denying Kindred's application, AHCA relied on reports issued to Congress annually by the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee (MedPAC) that discuss the placement of Medicare patients in appropriate post-acute settings. The June 2004 MedPAC report state the following about LTCHs: Using qualitative and quantitative methods, we find that LTCHs' role is to provide post-acute care to a small number of medically complex patients. We also find that the supply of LTCHs is a strong predictor of their use and that acute hospitals and skilled nursing facilities are the principal alternatives to LTCHs. We find that, in general, LTCH patients cost Medicare more than similar patients using alternative settings but that if LTCH care is targeted to patients of the highest severity, the cost is comparable. AHCA Ex. 7, at 121. The June 2004 MedPAC report, therefore, concludes that LTCHs should "be defined by facility and patient criteria that ensure that patients admitted to these facilities are medically complex and have a good chance of improvement." Id. Despite the above language in the June 2004 MedPAC report, discussion in the SAAR of portions of the MedPAC report shows that AHCA may have misread some of the subtleties of the MedPAC findings. The MedPAC report makes statements that LTCHs and SNFs substitute for one another. While there is some gross administrative data to support that hypothesis, that conclusion cannot yet be drawn due to limitations in data and the wide variation of patient conditions that may be represented by a single administrative grouping such as a DRG. An example of patients in different settings who would appear to be similar are those under DRG-475, which means they were on ventilator life support for at least 96 hours. Such patients may be discharged in conditions that vary greatly. These conditions range from an "alert, talking patient, no longer on life support," to a patient who is "not on life support but is making no progress." There is no administrative data that describes patients at the time of their discharge. MedPAC analysis, therefore, lacks the data to determine why some of those patients went to a higher versus a lower level of care. The SAAR also concludes, based on a letter from the MedPAC Chairman, that LTCH patients cost more on average than patients in other settings. This conclusion is based on an analysis that is unable to differentiate patients within a DRG based on their severity at the time of discharge. The limitation in the DRG is that it is designed to describe the patient's need at the time of admission rather than discharge, so the DRG classification alone does not identify whether the patient was healthy or ill at the time of discharge. Furthermore, MedPAC found that patients who tended to be more severe based on DRG assignment tended to be cared for at similar cost between LTCHs and other settings. In fact, for the tracheostomy patient, which is the extreme of severity and complexity, there was evidence of lower cost of care for patients whose case included an LTCH stay. MedPAC Chairman Glenn Hackbaith, in his March 20, 2006 letter, agreed that CMS's proposed change to the short stay outlier policy was "too severe"; that it affects a "substantial percentage of LTCH patients"; and that it would continue to affect a large percentage of admissions "regardless of the admission policies of LTCHs." MedPAC's March 2006 Report to Congress notes that the total Medicare payments to LTCHs nationwide -- $3.3 billion in 2004 -- represented less than one percent of all Medicare spending. Need Analysis in the Absence of an AHCA Need Methodology The Agency does not have a rule that sets out a formula for determining the need for LTCH beds. Accordingly, AHCA does not publish a fixed need pool for LTCH beds. As the parties agree, this case is governed, therefore, by Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C- 1.008(2)(e)2.a-d (the "Needs Assessment Rule"). Application of the Needs Assessment Rule makes Kindred responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology that covers specific criteria listed by the rule as detailed below, following the sections of this Order devoted to Kindred's Need Methodology and AHCA's criticisms of it. Kindred's Need Methodology Kindred bases its need methodology (the "Kindred Methodology") in this case on long-stay patients in short- term hospitals. A description of the Kindred Methodology, supported and proved by the testimony of Mr. Wurdock at hearing, appears in Kindred's CON application under a section entitled "Bed Need Analysis," see Exhibit K-1, at 14. It begins with the statement: "Long-term care hospital bed need can be estimated directly based on the acute care discharges and days occurring in the market." Id. There follows a chart that lists the six Brevard County STACHs and shows the number of patient discharges in the six months ending March 2004 and the patient days for the same period. These total 68,710 and 309,704, respectively. To identify the number of patient days appropriate for LTCH care, the Kindred Methodology takes into account patient diagnosis at discharge, patient age and length of stay. Some types of patients (burn patients, obstetric and pediatric patients or behavioral patients) are not appropriate for LTCH admission. Likewise, patients with short-term rehabilitation diagnoses typically are not appropriate for LTCH care. The first step in the Kindred Methodology, therefore, is to identify and omit those diagnoses which represent patients not appropriate for long-term care admission. Those include all DRGs in the Major Diagnostic Categories (MDC) of 13-Female Reproductive System; 14-Pregnancy, Childbirth and Puerperium; 15- Newborns and Other Neonates; 19-Mental Diseases and Disorders; 20-Alcohol and Substance Abuse; 22-Burns; and 23-Factors Influencing Health Status. Two additional groups of DRGs are omitted by the Kindred Methodology: DRGs specific to patients less than 18 years of age and DRGs for organ transplant patients who are usually required to remain in the STACH for specialized care. The end result of the first step in the Kindred Methodology is a list of 387 short-term acute care DRGs ("LTCH Referral DRGs") that represent patients who potentially could be eligible for LTCH admission. The Kindred Methodology's second step is to identify discharges that are assigned to one of the LTCH Referral DRGs and are aged 18 or older and whose length of stay exceeds a threshold number of days. This threshold is described in the application as follows: The length of stay threshold is defined in terms of the national geometric mean length of stay (GeoMean). That statistic is calculated annually by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for each DRG. The number of long-term hospital patients and patient days is affected by the timing of the referrals. Referrals usually occur after the patient's length of stay has become longer than average. It is commonly accepted that many patients who stay in the acute care hospital beyond the geometric mean length of stay would be best cared for in a specialized, long- term environment. Therefore, in this analysis it is assumed that referral to Kindred Hospital Brevard will occur five days after a patient has passed their DRG-specific geometric mean length of stay. This allows time for patient assessment and transfer arrangements. Another important factor affecting the potential number of long-term hospital patients and patient days is the length of time a patient stays in the LTCH. In order to qualify for Medicare certification, long-term care hospitals must maintain a minimum average length of stay of twenty-five days or greater among their Medicare patients. Admission criteria, therefore, are used to minimize the number of Medicare patients requiring just a few days of care. To reflect this in the analysis, patients are considered to be LTCH appropriate only if they would have a long-term hospital length of stay of ten days or more. Exhibit K-1, at 16. Discharged patients, therefore are considered appropriate for LTCH care by the Kindred Methodology if they are discharged from a Brevard County STACH, are at least 18 years of age, are assigned to one of the 387 Referral DRGs, and have a hospital length of stay that exceeds the geometric mean by at least 15 days, the sum of a referral period of five days and an LTCH minimum length of stay of ten days. The third step in the Kindred Methodology is to sum the potential LTCH days produced by the appropriate patients. For these patients, potential LTCH days include all days after the "'transfer day' (i.e., all days that exceed the GeoMean + five days)." Id. For the 12-month period ending March 2004, this calculation yielded approximately 18,400 hospital days in the six Brevard County hospitals, for an average daily census (ADC) of 50.4. The fourth step in the Kindred Methodology is to identify the number of patient days that are leaving Brevard County for LTCH care, due to the absence of an LTCH in the county. During the 12-month period ending in March 2004, 41 Brevard County residents were discharged from Kindred Hospital North Florida in Green Cove Springs and Kindred Hospital Fort Lauderdale. Those patients received 2,229 days of LTCH care, equaling an average daily census of 6.1. Adding that to the 50.4 ADC un-served patients in Brevard County, yields a potential LTCH ADC of 56.5. The fifth step is to account for population growth. This is especially important when there is rapid growth in senior population as there is in Brevard County. According to AHCA projections, the population 65 and over will increase 9.2 percent during the next five years, while the total population will increase 10.8 percent. It is appropriate to increase LTCH ADC at least by 9.2 percent during this time period, since the proposed project will not open until 2007 at the earliest, and will not achieve full utilization until at least 2011. This step produces an LTCH ADC of 61.7. The sixth and final step is to calculate LTCH "bed need" by assuming 85 percent occupancy. Dividing the LTCH ADC of 61.7 by 0.85 yields a bed need of 72 LTCH beds. The Kindred Methodology does not account for the five percent or more of referrals that come from sources other than LTCHs such as nursing homes. Nor does it take into account the admissions from Indian River County currently served by Kindred Hospital Fort Lauderdale, some of which are sure to come to the proposed project if approved. AHCA Criticism The methodology is criticized by AHCA on the bases, among others, that it does not account for beds available elsewhere in District 7, and that it determines need solely within Brevard County, a departure from the statutory mandate which requires Agency review of CON applications with regard to "availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities in the service district of the applicant." § 408.035(2), Fla. Stat. (emphasis supplied). The Agency's argument with regard to the un- utilized beds at the one existing LTCH in District 7, Select-Orlando, is undermined by recent action of the agency in approving a second Select facility in Orange County, a 40-bed freestanding facility: Select Specialty Hospital-Orange, Inc. ("Select-Orange"). The Agency approved the 40-bed Select-Orange facility, not open at the time of hearing, by way of a Settlement Agreement (the "Select-Orange Settlement Agreement") with the applicant. The two parties to the agreement, AHCA and Select-Orange, jointly stated in that document: [T]he Agency, in recognizing that there are two distinct health systems in the Orlando area, believes that this LTCH is needed for the Orlando Regional Healthcare System due to that unique situation . . . Kindred Ex. 4, at 2. The two distinct health systems in the Orlando area are Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc., which has a number of STACHs in the Orlando area including Orlando Regional Medical Center (ORMC), a tertiary medical facility with more than 500 beds, and the Adventist Health System, Inc. (Adventist), a hospital organization with a nationwide presence that as of 2002 operated seven acute care campus systems under a single license held by Adventist d/b/a Florida Hospital in the Orlando Metropolitan Area. See Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc. vs. AHCA, Case No. 02-0449 (DOAH November 18, 2002), pp. 8-10. The Select-Orange Settlement Agreement was entered in the midst of administrative litigation over AHCA's preliminary agency action with regard to a CON application. The meaning and impact of AHCA's statement quoted above from the Select-Orange Settlement Agreement were not fully elaborated upon at hearing by any direct evidence. Kindred established through the testimony of Mr. Wurdock and through cross-examination of Ms. Rivera that although Select-Orange was originally approved as a "hospital-in- hospital" or "HIH," that Select-Orange obtained a modification of its CON to become a freestanding facility. Had the facility remained an HIH, federal regulations would have limited the percentage of Medicare referrals that could come from its host hospital, ORMC. As a freestanding facility, Select-Orange has no such limitations. It can fill its beds with referrals from ORMC. Whatever the impact of the freestanding nature of Select-Orange, the Agency's recognition of the unique situation in the Orlando area created by two distinct health systems, such that there is support for a new LTCH when the existing LTCH has available beds, gives rise in this case to an inference in Kindred's favor. If two distinct hospital systems in the Orlando area can support the addition of 40 LTCH beds, then it is highly likely that Brevard County can support a 60-bed LTCH. The county is not a part of the Orlando Metropolitan Area. LTCH referral patterns are north-south along the I-95 corridor (not to Select-Orlando). There are geographic and roadway access issues from Brevard County to the Orlando area demonstrated by commuting patterns that exclude Brevard County from the Orlando Metropolitan Area. And most significantly, the methodology reasonably established need for more than 60 beds in Brevard County. The Needs Assessment Rule The need for any health care service or program regulated by CON Law for which AHCA has not provided a specific need methodology by rule is governed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)(the "Need Assessment Rule"), which states in part: . . . If an agency need methodology does not exist for the proposed project: . . . If an agency need methodology does not exist for the proposed project: The Agency will provide to the applicant, if one exists, any policy upon which to determine need for the proposed beds or service. The applicant is not precluded from using other methodologies to compare and contrast with the agency policy. If no agency policy exist, the applicant will be responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except when they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory and rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict or both; Medical treatment trends; Market conditions; and Competition. The Agency does not publish a fixed need pool for LTCH beds because it does not have a specific need formula or methodology for LTCH beds. The Agency, furthermore, has not provided Kindred with any policy upon which to determine need in this case. Accordingly, Kindred used its own methodology for determining need in Brevard County and elsewhere in the district (the Orlando Metropolitan Area). Finally, since no agency policy exists with regard to an LTCH need methodology, Kindred is required to prove the existence of need for its proposed project on the basis of the five categories of criteria (referred to in the rule as "topics") listed in sub-paragraphs "a. through e.," of paragraph 2., in subsection (2)(e) of the Rule. Population Demographics and Dynamics In assessing an area's population and demographics for the purpose of evaluating LTCH need, special attention is paid to the elderly population because the majority of LTCH patients are Medicare patients. The elderly are also more likely to produce LTCH patients because they are more likely to be medically complex and catastrophically ill with co-morbidities and dependent on medical equipment like ventilators. Brevard County, while home to only an approximate one-quarter of District 7's population, accounts for more than a third of its seniors. While Brevard County's elderly population is experiencing average or slightly below average growth in relation to the rest of the state, there is no question that Brevard County's elderly population is on the increase and reasonably projected to increase in the future. Availability, Utilization, and Quality of Like Services in the District "[B]y definition, putting a long term hospital in Brevard County will increase accessibility [make LTCH services more available] because . . . the people in Brevard County will no longer have to go all the way to Orlando, or Jacksonville, or Ft. Lauderdale for [LTCH] care." Tr. 48. Mr. Wurdock elaborated on the point of district availability at hearing: We did look at the entire district. . . . [T]here [are] only four counties in the district, three of which orbit around the Orlando and then there is the Palm Bay/Melbourne metropolitan area, which is Brevard. And when we looked at the district as a whole, what we discovered was that there is a need really for two new long term hospitals in the district. There is clearly a need for another one in Orlando [beyond the existing Select- Orlando and the approved not yet operating Select-Orange] and there is also a need for one in Brevard County. . . . [You] could build . . . two new long term care hospitals, both of them in Orlando, but that doesn't . . . make . . . sense when you've got a very large concentration of seniors significantly removed from the Orlando area with six short term hospitals in . . . [Brevard C]ounty comprising essentially its own market. So logically, you . . . put one long term hospital in Brevard and then another long term hospital in Orlando. Tr. 48-49. The presence of six STACHs in Brevard County and the large senior population is significant. The closest LTCH is Select-Orlando more than an hour's drive away. The distance to Select-Orlando and Select-Orange's future site from the municipality in which Kindred proposes to site its proposed LTCH, Melbourne, is more than 60 miles, in a direction not favored by Brevard County residents oriented to driving north or south along the I-95 corridor, but not to the west into the Orlando Metropolitan Area. Furthermore, and most significantly, family members rarely fully understand and accept that their catastrophically ill elderly loved one should be shipped 60 miles away when the patient is in a hospital with a good reputation. Their resistance to a referral at such a distance is unlikely to increase utilization at the Orlando area LTCHs no matter how convinced are their physicians and other clinical practitioners that such a move is required for better care. Medical Treatment Trends LTCHs are recognized as a legitimate part of the health care continuum by the federal government and CON approvals of LTCHs in Florida have been on the upswing throughout this decade. At the federal level, in recognition of their treatment of a small but important subset of patients, Medicare has adopted LTCH DRGs, that is, DRGs specific to LTCHs, for reimbursement under Medicare's PPS. At the state level, the Agency recognizes that "[t]he trend is for LTCHs to be increasingly used to meet the needs of patients in other settings who for a variety of reasons are better served in LTCHs." Respondent Agency for Health Care Administration's Proposed Recommended Order, at 15. This recognition is made by AHCA despite MedPAC's concerns, many of which were tempered and adequately addressed by Kindred in this proceeding. Market Conditions At first blush, market conditions might not seem to favor Kindred's application. The occupancy rate in the District indicates that there are available beds. In AHCA's view, the occupancy rate at the one existing LTCH in District 7, the 35-bed Select-Orlando facility, an H-I-H in a converted nursing home at Florida Hospital Orlando, is not optimal. Select-Orlando opened in 2003, only a few years ago, and it is operating at a high occupancy rate that is approaching optimal. Kindred, moreover, did not confine its need case to its Brevard County methodology. It also presented evidence of need in the Orlando Metropolitan Area consisting, in part, of the three other counties in District 7. Competition While the Agency asserts that it did not give competition much weight in this application, AHCA has not taken the position that Kindred's proposed facility would not foster competition. Having an LTCH in Brevard County would foster competition in the traditional sense in that the only LTCHs in the District, one existing and one approved, are those of Select Medical Corporation, Kindred's chief competitor. A Reasonable Methodology for Brevard County In short, Kindred's methodology is reasonable for determining need in Brevard County and it appropriately includes the topics required by the Needs Assessment Rule. The Agency's argument that there is no need for LTCH beds in Brevard County when there are LTCH beds available elsewhere in the district is defeated by its approval of the Select-Orange facility. Whether Kindred's methodology in this case carries the day for Kindred, given the Agency's approach on a district-wide basis to the need for LTCHs, is addressed in the section of this Order devoted to conclusions of law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue CON No. 9835 to Kindred Hospitals East, LLC, for a 60-bed, long-term acute care hospital in AHCA Health Planning Service District 7, to be located in Brevard County. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan Levine, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Christa Calamas, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Cole & Bryant, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sandra E. Allen, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Select Specialty Hospital-Marion, Inc.'s CON Application 9710, filed with the Agency for Health Care Administration, seeks establishment of a 44-bed Long Term Care Hospital (an "LTCH") in Polk County, AHCA Health Care Planning District 6. The Agency preliminarily denied the application. Select-Marion has challenged the denial and Kindred-Bay Area seeks intervention in the proceeding. The issues in this case are two: whether Kindred-Bay Area has proven it has standing to intervene in the proceeding and whether the application should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Select-Marion, the applicant, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Select Medical Corporation. Select Medical Corporation provides long-term acute care services at 99 LTCHs in 26 states through various subsidiaries. In addition, Select Medical Corporation operates 741 outpatient clinics and has more than 400 "contract therapy locations for freestanding rehabilitation hospitals[.]" (Tr. 65.) Select has approximately 21,000 employees. The Agency is the state agency responsible for the administration of the Certificate of Need program in Florida. See § 408.034(1), Fla. Stat. Kindred-Bay Area operates a 73-bed freestanding, long- term care hospital in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, in AHCA District 6, the health services planning district in which Select-Marion hopes to construct and operate the applied-for project. Kindred-Bay Area is owned and operated by Kindred Hospitals, East, LLC, which also owns and operates a number of other long-term hospitals in Florida and other states. LTCH Services The length of stay in an acute care hospital (a "short- term hospital" or a "general hospital") for most patients is three to five days. Some hospital patients, however, are in need of acute care services on a long-term basis. A long-term basis is 25 to 30 days of additional acute care service after the typical three to five day stay in a short-term hospital. Although some of these patients are "custodial" in nature (see paragraph 19, below) and not in need of LTCH services, many of these long-term patients are better served in an LTCH than in a traditional acute care hospital. In the health care continuum, LTCH care constitutes a component dedicated to catastrophically ill and medically complex patients in need of acute care services that exceed by a considerable amount the average length of stay for those patients in a general hospital. Typically medically unstable for the entire time of stay in the general hospital, these patients require extensive nursing care with daily physician oversight usually accompanied by some type of technologically advanced support. Quite commonly, the technological support includes a ventilator. Most often elderly, LTCH patients may be younger if victims of severe trauma. Whatever the age of the patients, for a variety of reasons, once they exceed the short-term length of stay in a general hospital intensive care unit ("ICU"), they rarely receive the health care treatment that is most appropriate for them in health care settings other than an LTCH. LTCH patients are not able to tolerate, for example, the three hours per day of therapy associated with comprehensive medical rehabilitation and so are not appropriate for Comprehensive Medical Rehabilitation ("CMR") units or hospitals. As compared to LTCH patients, moreover, CMR patients usually require significantly less nursing care. They receive on average 4 to 4.5 hours of nursing care per patient day, as compared to the average eight hours of nursing care per patient day required by LTCH patients. The services in an LTCH are distinct from those provided in a skilled nursing facility ("SNF") or a skilled nursing unit ("SNU") in that more nursing hours are dedicated to the patient and physician oversight is provided with more regularity, that is, on a daily basis. Patients in SNFs or SNUs are not likely to receive daily physician visits and observation or, in terms of hours, the intensity in nursing services required by the patient appropriate for LTCH care. The level of care provided in an LTCH is analogous to that provided in an ICU progressive care unit in a short-term acute care hospital. But staff orientation at an ICU in a short-term care hospital is different from LTCH staff orientation. The ICU staff is focused on stabilizing the patient and moving the patient to the next level of care within the continuum of care. With such a focus, it is difficult for the ICU in a general hospital to sustain the level of care for the long-term as required by a patient in need of long-term intensive care. Furthermore, when a patient has "fallen off . . . [the] clinical pathway" (tr. 19) and does not leave the ICU within the short time projected for the standard short-term acute care patient, the patient is viewed as a failure by the ICU staff. Staff perspective that there is little hope for the patient's recovery dampens the motivation necessary to provide consistently the service the patient requires over the long-term if the patient is to recover. Federal Government Recognition of LTCHs The federal government recognizes the distinct place based on the high level of patient acuity occupied by LTCHs in the continuum of care. The Prospective Payment System ("PPS") of the federal government treats LTCH care as a discrete form of care. LTCH care therefore has its own system of diagnostic related groups ("DRGs") and case mix reimbursement that provides Medicare payments at rates different from what PPS provides for other traditional post-acute care providers. Effective October 1, 2002, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") implemented categories of payment designed specifically for LTCHs, the "LTC-DRG." The LTC-DRG is a decisive sign of the recognition by CMS and the federal government of the differences between general hospitals and LTCHs when it comes to patient population, costs of care, resources consumed by the patients and health care delivery. CON Application Process Select-Marion submitted CON Application 9710 in the second CON Application Review Cycle of 2003. The application was reviewed in comparison with CON Application 9709, submitted by SemperCare Hospital of Lakeland, Inc., through which SemperCare-Lakeland sought a 30-bed "hospital in a hospital" at Lakeland Regional Medical Center in Polk County. The Agency evaluated the applications in a State Agency Action Report ("SAAR"). The SAAR recommended denial of both applications. A basis for the denial of Select-Marion's application is summed up as follows: The applicant contends that Polk County LTCH appropriate patients are remaining in acute care hospitals within the county as no appropriate or available alternatives exist with an acceptable distance. The applicant did not demonstrate that Polk County residents are being denied access to existing appropriate post-acute care services including LTCH services. There are two licensed LTCHs with an average occupancy in calendar year 2002 below 75 percent located in adjacent Hillsborough County. Travel distances to existing LTCHs, skilled nursing facilities, comprehensive medical rehabilitation facilities, or any appropriate provider of post-acute care were not demonstrated to be unreasonable. AHCA Ex. 2, p. 34. The SAAR also recommended denial of SemperCare-Lakeland's application. On December 10, 2003, authorized representatives of AHCA adopted the recommendation contained in the SAAR and released it. See id., p. 37. Both Select-Marion and SemperCare-Lakeland timely challenged the denials of their respective applications. The petitions of the two were referred to DOAH and consolidated for purposes of hearing. SemperCare-Lakeland subsequently withdrew its challenge. An order was entered closing the DOAH file on the Sempercare challenge, see DOAH Case No. 04-0460CON, leaving this case to proceed on its own. Issues Aside from the standing issue with regard to Kindred- Bay Area, the issue in this case is approval of Select-Marion's application. This primary issue breaks into related sub-issues reflected in the provision of the SAAR, quoted above. Has Select-Marion demonstrated that there is need for an LTCH in Polk County despite the existence of other LTCHs in the district and given their less-than-optimal occupancy rates? If so, would an LTCH in Polk County enhance access to LTCH service for District 6 residents and specifically for those who reside or are hospitalized in Polk County? Put another way, is there a legally cognizable barrier to access for Polk County patients to LTCH beds available elsewhere in the district that would justify approval of the application? LTCH Need Methodology and AHCA's Concerns The Agency has not adopted a need methodology for LTCH services. Consequently, it does not publish fixed need pools for LTCHs. In response to a rise in LTCH applications over the last several years, the Agency has consistently voiced concerns about identification of the patients that appropriately comprise the LTCH patient population. Because of a lack of specific data from applicants with regard to the composition of LTCH patient population, the Agency is not convinced that there is not an overlap between the LTCH patient population and the population of patients served in other healthcare settings. In the absence of data identifying the LTCH patient population, AHCA has reached the conclusion "that there are other options available to those patients [the population targeted by the LTCH applicant], depending on . . . things such as physician preference." (Tr. 175.) Another expression of the Agency's view is that LTCH applicants have taken an "overly-broad" (id.) approach to determining the LTCH patient population with an emphasis on long lengths of stay in general hospitals. The Agency accepts that the candidate population for placement in a long-term care hospital includes at least some of those patients with extended lengths of stay in an acute care setting. But "in the absence of better data that evaluated severity of illness, as well," AHCA fears that the approval of an LTCH application "has a tendency to allow less severely ill people to drift into these otherwise very expensive facilities [that is, LTCHs]." (Tr. 175-176.) A better approach in AHCA's view would be to focus on severity of illness because some long stay patients in general hospitals whose stays are more custodial in nature are not appropriate candidates for LTCH services. These long stay "custodial" patients are neither catastrophically ill nor medically complex. For them, rather than the more specialized and highly technological-based services accompanied by intensive nursing care required by the LTCH patient, fewer services of less complexity suffice. When there is an oversupply of LTCH beds, moreover, they tend to attract less severely ill patients than those who are appropriate for LTCH services. The Agency draws support for its concerns from a report to the Congress in June 2004 by MedPAC.1 MedPAC's concern about LTCHs stems from the cost associated with LTCH services: a cost that is higher than other skilled nursing facilities or inpatient rehabilitation facilities. Just as the Agency has concluded, MedPAC expects LTCHs with an oversupply of LTCH beds to attract patients who are not severely ill enough to be appropriate for LTCH care. In a setting whose costs are higher than is appropriate for them, more Medicare dollars are expended on these patients than is necessary. The Agency's concerns about LTCH applications in general are compounded in this case by declining occupancies in LTCHs in District 6. "For the calendar year 2002, they were at 74.47%, and for calendar year 2004 they're at 66.65%, according to our [AHCA] records." (Tr. 178.) Existing LTCHs in District 6 There are currently two licensed LTCHs operating in District 6: Kindred Hospital-Central Tampa, and the Intervenor in this case, Kindred-Bay Area. Kindred-Bay Area is approximately 50 to 60 miles, and within an hour's drive of the Winter Haven Area where Select-Marion intends to locate its proposed LTCH; Kindred Hospital-Central Tampa is 5 to 7 miles closer to Winter Haven than is Kindred-Bay Area. Kindred-Central Tampa is a 102-bed LTCH. It is JCAHO accredited. The recent trend in its average occupancy is a declining one. In 2002, the average occupancy rate was 79.4%. In 2003, it fell to 70.6%. In 2004, it fell, yet again, although the decline was less dramatic, to 69.6%. On the average day, Kindred-Central Tampa had 30 to 32 beds available to accommodate additional patients. Kindred-Bay Area is a 73-bed LTCH in Hillsborough County. Also JCAHO accredited, it is licensed as an acute care hospital and is designated as an LTCH by the Medicare program. It offers a variety of long-term care services: respiratory/ventilator services, IV services, neurological services, wound care, dialysis and others. Kindred has a 4-bed ICU, an 8-bed "step down" unit, and 61 med-surg beds. Need Demonstration: the Applicant's Responsibility It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate under Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2., that there is a need for the services for which approval is sought. The Agency analyzes LTCH applications on a district basis. The approach offered by Select-Marion, however, was a different one from the Agency’s. The approach is outlined in Select-Marion’s application. Extensive testimony about the approach, moreover, was offered at hearing through Select-Marion's expert health planner, Patricia Greenberg. Select-Marion’s Application and Proposal Submitted in the second application cycle for 2003, Select-Marion’s application was assigned CON 9710. Select-Marion estimates its total project costs to be approximately $11,244,000. It has not yet acquired the site for its proposed LTCH but anticipates that the facility will be located near or in Winter Haven in the central eastern region of Polk County. Select-Marion, however, has not conditioned its application on the location of the facility in the Winter Haven area. It has only offered to condition the application on the location of the facility in Polk County. If located in the Winter Haven area, the proposed LTCH will be within 20 miles of the existing acute care providers in the county, a location sufficiently close to the major referral sources for the facility. Uncontested Statutory and Rule Criteria By stipulation of the parties it has been agreed that Select-Marion's application meets most of the statutory and rule criteria applicable to CONs or that those criteria are not applicable. The primary exception to the parties' agreement is need. As testified at hearing by the Agency's sole witness, the applicant's alleged failure to demonstrate need is the sole reason the application was denied. (See Tr. 169.) Ms. Greenberg's Testimony Patricia Greenberg is the President of National Health Care Associates, "a health care consulting firm that specializes in health care planning, health care finance and health care operations." (Tr. 100.) She has extensive experience as a consultant on health care projects "including Certificate of Need work." (Tr. 101.) Since the Agency does not have an LTCH need methodology in rule nor an Agency policy on LTCH need methodology in place, Select-Marion is responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics: Population, demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, sub-district or both; Medical treatment trends; and, Market conditions. See the testimony of Ms. Greenberg at tr. 115 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e). Select-Marion addressed each of these topics in its application. On the basis of the each of the above-quoted topics and using several numeric need methodologies that follow general health planning principles, generally accepted by AHCA in other contested LTCH CON cases, as testified by Ms. Greenberg, there is a need for at least 44 LTCH beds in Polk County. Ms. Greenberg's analysis does not overlook the beds that are available elsewhere in the district, that is, in Hillsborough County where Kindred-Central Tampa and Kindred-Bay Area are located. But in her words, "[t]he facilities in the neighboring county [Hillsborough] are not accessible to this [the Polk County] population." (Tr. 135.) Ms. Greenberg elaborated on this point later in her testimony when discussing the extent of impact to Kindred-Bay Area that might occur should the application be granted, "Kindred-Bay Area may have beds, but they're not accessible to that population, or they would be using them." (Tr. 150.) The gist of the testimony with regard to accessibility was reiterated by Ms. Greenberg when asked directly whether the Kindred facilities in Tampa are "reasonable alternatives to the patients in Polk County": No, they are not reasonable alternatives at all. [The two Kindred facilities] have beds that are available. The physicians that support the need for the project, in the depositions I have reviewed[2], say they're not an alternative, they're not sending patients to them, they only get a few patients going [to the Kindred facilities] because of the family hardship, continuity of care, . . . . They're not an alternative at all for that patient population. (Tr. 162, 163.) In contrast to the approach of Select-Marion to need on a "Polk County" basis, as explained by Ms. Greenberg in her testimony, AHCA, however, does not approach LTCH need on a sub- district basis. The Agency approaches LTCH need on a district basis. Polk County is but one county in the multi-county health planning district in which it is located: District 6. District 6 At the time of filing of the application, the population in District 6 was over 1,955,700. The population included 323,869 in the age cohort of 65 and over, the age cohort eligible for Medicare services, and the cohort that contains patients primarily served by LTCHs. The population of Polk County at the time of the filing of the application was 507,839, including 94,950 in the age cohort, 65 and over. Approximately one-third of the District’s Medicare eligible population lives in Polk County. Polk County is one of five counties that comprise AHCA Health Care Planning District 6. (The other four are Hillsborough, Manatee, Hardee, and Highlands Counties.) The two LTCHs that presently exist in the District are Kindred-Central Tampa and Kindred-Bay Area. Evidence was presented as to Kindred-Bay Area's Patient Recruitment and Admissions Practices, the sources of its admissions, market conditions and impacts to Kindred-Bay Area's census and the adverse impact to Kindred-Bay Area. Kindred-Bay Area’s Patient Recruitment and Admissions Practices Kindred-Bay Area has “clinical liaisons” who serve to educate health care providers as to the availability of Kindred’s services to build relationships with potential referral sources, and to gather information for the evaluation of potential LTCH patients from other health care facilities. The majority of Kindred’s referrals and admissions come from short-term acute care hospitals, primarily intensive care units within such hospitals but also the med-surg units. The clinical liaison’s job includes conducting “in- service training” to educate hospital staff as well as physicians and other health care professionals of the services and treatments Kindred offers, and the types of patients for whom Kindred may be an appropriate placement option. Kindred- Bay Area’s clinical liaison for Polk County, Mindy Wright, has been performing in-service training in Winter Haven for ten years, typically once a year but more frequently if turnover demands. She attempts a visit to the Winter Haven area at least every two weeks and frequently for periods of every week. The clinical liaison also gathers information concerning potential referrals to Kindred from acute care hospitals in the Winter Haven area. The clinical liaison transmits this information to the hospital and the information is evaluated by a team consisting of the hospital’s CEO, CFO, internal case manager, and a nurse or physician to make a decision on admission. There is an incentive for LTCHs to admit patients who meet medical criteria for admission. Reimbursement from Medicaid and Medicare programs may be denied if a patient has not met appropriate admission criteria. Reimbursement, moreover, may be reduced if the patient initially met appropriate criteria but then turns out to have a relatively short length of stay in the LTCH. Some patients are denied admission to Kindred-Bay Area for clinical reasons. For example, the patient may not meet Interqual criteria for admission. Failure to meet clinical admission criteria can occur if the patient has been kept in the short-term acute care hospital too long, possibly even for several months, when the patient should have been referred to Kindred much sooner. The majority of patients referred to Kindred-Bay Area are admitted. Patients are also denied admission to Kindred for financial reasons. On principle, Select does not decry such a practice, acknowledging that it also seeks to assure that some revenue stream is available to assist in providing the expensive care that comprises LTCH services. Sources of Admissions to Kindred-Bay Area Kindred-Bay Area draws the majority of its patients (60 to 75%) from Hillsborough and Polk Counties and specifically from the cities of Tampa and Lakeland and the Brandon and Winter Haven areas. It has also drawn patients from the Orlando/Orange County area, other areas of Polk County, and from as far south as the Naples Area. In 2003, Kindred-Bay Area underwent renovations. The renovations limited the number of patients it could admit. In 2004, Mindy Wright, the clinical liaison responsible for the Orange County and Polk County areas, was on maternity leave for four months. Her absence significantly reduced Kindred’s presence in Polk County health care facilities. The hospital did not replace Ms. Wright. Although other clinical liaisons provided some coverage in her area, it was not as effective as Ms. Wright had been. The result was not unexpected; when clinical liaisons are not in regular contact with short-term acute care hospitals and other providers, referrals and admissions to the LTCH from such facilities usually drop significantly. In addition to renovations and Ms. Wright's absence, there were several other factors that had an impact on admissions to Kindred-Bay Area in the last few years. First, several hurricanes in 2004 had an impact on Central Florida. They seriously disrupted the delivery of health care services, particularly in Polk County. The disruption resulted in a drop in referrals and admissions to Kindred-Bay Area from Polk County. Second, turnover in staffs at hospitals to which Ms. Wright was assigned, including Winter Haven, had an impact on referrals. If the social worker at the hospital does not know about Kindred and its capabilities, the social worker may not identify patients meeting Kindred’s criteria for admission. The conditions that led to declining admissions to Kindred-Bay Area from Polk County were temporary. So far in 2005, the downward trend in admissions between 2002 and 2004 has been reversed. Admissions through the first four months of 2005 at Kindred-Bay Area have been 20% higher for the same period in 2004, higher than the same period in 2003 and nearly at the same level for the period in 2002. Admissions from Orange County, on the other hand, have dropped and are not likely to rebound. Orange County admissions went from 50 in 2002 to 28 in 2003 and only 10 in 2004. An LTCH operated by SemperCare, subsequently acquired by Select Medical Corporation, opened in Orange County in June 2003 (at a location about an hour’s drive from Winter Haven). The drop in Orange County admissions is likely to be exacerbated by the opening of another CON-approved Select facility in Orange County, a 40-bed, freestanding facility. LTCH Market Conditions and Impact on Census Kindred-Bay Area's census has declined in recent years, from an average daily census of 52 patients (72% occupancy) in 2002 to 48 patients (66%) in 2003 to 46 patients (63%) in 2004. On the average day in 2004, Kindred-Bay Area had beds available to accommodate another 27 patients. At the time of final hearing, Kindred-Bay Area's occupancy level was at 60% or about 44 beds. Optimal occupancy for Kindred-Bay Area would be 69 to 70 patients or about 95% occupancy. The existence of a decline in occupancy rates for District 6 LTCHs is supported by AHCA data which shows a decline from about 74.5% in 2002 to 66.7% in 2004. It is also reasonable to assume that some patients from eastern Polk County will follow historic trends and flow to the existing LTCH and approved LTCH in Orange County. The combination of declining occupancy in District 6 LTCHs and possible outmigration of eastern Polk County residents to Orange County for LTCH services diminish Select-Marion's claim that an LTCH is needed in Polk County. Other changes in the LTCH market are also likely to impact Kindred-Bay Area in terms of referrals and admissions from other areas. Select has won a recommendation for approval for an LTCH in Lee County in a formal administrative proceeding. At the time of filing of proposed recommended orders in this proceeding the recommended order in the Lee County proceeding was pending. Kindred-Bay Area maintains a clinical liaison in Lee County to seek referrals in much the same manner as conducted by Ms. Wright. If a Select facility opens in Ft. Myers, it will have an impact on the referrals that Kindred-Bay Area receives from Ft. Myers and surrounding areas. In addition, HealthSouth has received CON approval for an LTCH in Sarasota expected to open in August 2005. Kindred- Bay Area does not directly market to the Sarasota area. Another Kindred Hospital, Kindred-St. Petersburg markets in that area. It is reasonable to assume that the areas south of Sarasota toward Ft. Myers will begin to refer patients to the closer HealthSouth-Sarasota facility rather than continuing referrals to Kindred-Bay Area. Further, as HealthSouth-Sarasota seeks to establish its present in the market, it will likely engage in some marketing in the Tampa Bay area, in areas currently served by Kindred-Bay Area. Kindred-Bay Area's sister hospital, Kindred-Central Tampa, no longer a party to this proceeding, does not contend that the opening of a Select facility would result in the loss of patients to Kindred-Central Tampa. Kindred-Central Tampa, however, is available to accept referrals from Polk County health care providers, either directly or at the request of Kindred-Bay Area. Kindred-Bay Area, like Kindred-Central Tampa, has an open medical staff and any physician can apply for admitting or consulting privileges and would be granted them if they met qualifications. Further, declining occupancy levels at Kindred-Central Tampa, a 102-bed facility, demonstrates that there is available capacity at Kindred-Central Tampa to absorb patients from Polk County, just as there is capacity at Kindred- Bay Area to absorb additional patients from Polk County who are in need of LTCH services. Adverse Impact on Kindred For the periods of calendar years 2002 and 2003 and the first half of 2004, the gross revenue impact on Kindred-Bay Area attributable to the number of patients from Polk County that Kindred-Bay Area would have lost to Select-Marion's proposed facility ranged from $1.75 million to $4.7 million. In terms of net revenue and after-tax margin, however, the losses would be substantially smaller. For the 32 patients from Polk County admitted to Kindred-Bay Area in 2004, the total after-tax margin impact would be only $240,000. Furthermore, Kindred-Bay Area is not likely to lose all of its Polk County patients if the proposed project is located in the Winter Haven area since Lakeland area patients, located closer to Tampa than Winter Haven, might still choose LTCH services at Kindred-Bay Area over the proposed Select facility. As found earlier in this order, however, Select-Marion has not conditioned its CON on locating the proposed facility in Winter Haven. A Winter Haven facility, moreover, with a primary service area with a 20-mile radius would capture Lakeland in its primary service area. On balance, the impact of the proposed facility located in Polk County on Kindred is not substantial enough to confer standing on Kindred-Bay Area. The SAAR Following its review of Select's application, AHCA issued its State Agency Action Report (the "SAAR") recommending that CON 9710 be denied. Following the signature of officials at the Agency indicating approval of the recommendation, the SAAR became the preliminary action of the Agency subject to challenge under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. At trial, the Agency, through its witness, Jeffrey Gregg, Chief of the Agency's Bureau of Health Facility Regulation, testified that the only reason the application was denied is the Select-Marion's failure in AHCA's view to demonstrate need for the facility. Select-Marion's expert health care planner testified that there is need in Polk County for the facility. The need is based on need methodologies that are both reasonable and appropriate from a health planning perspective and that are consistent with methodologies approved by final orders of the Agency. As discussed, above, however, there is a critical difference in the application of the need methodologies in this case from other cases. In this case the need methodologies developed by Select-Marion applied only to Polk County and not to the district as a whole. The Agency determines need on a district-wide basis. Select-Marion maintains that there are barriers to Polk County patients' access to existing LTCH facilities. The barriers are described as geographical based on physician referral patterns and family participation in rehabilitation. Patient and Physician Preference and Practice Select-Marion largely bases its case for need on allegations of the preferences of patients, family members and their physicians. As to family members, it is not to be doubted that family members wish to avoid the burdens of travel. To the extent, however, that family members value specialized care, they are more likely to have the patient travel the distance necessary to receive it. Indeed, some Polk County families of LTCH patients are willing to travel the distance necessary to visit family members who are patients outside Polk County. With regard to referring physicians, the majority of referring physicians choose not to serve as the attending physician for their patients once referred to an LTCH, even when the LTCH is located in the same city as the referring physician. Typically, a referring physician relies upon another doctor or a practice group to attend to his or her patient in the LTCH setting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration deny CON 9710 filed by Select Specialty-Marion, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 2005.
Findings Of Fact The Parties St. Joseph's is a tertiary care hospital located at 3001 West Buffalo Avenue, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. There is spatial capacity for 703 beds at St. Joseph's, but only 649 beds are licensed, staffed and in use. It is sponsored by the Franciscan Sisters of Allegheny, and is a subsidiary of a holding company, St. Joseph's Health Care Center, Inc. Without CON approval, St. Joseph's cannot increase licensed bed capacity at its current facility on West Buffalo Avenue, or open the satellite facility which is here at issue. St. Joseph's current service area includes Hillsborough County, particularly the central and northern portions of the County. Occupancy rates for St. Joseph's in medical surgical areas have been approximately 80 percent, and at peak times have exceeded 90 percent. However during the last half of 1986, the occupancy rate fell to 74 percent. St. Joseph's provided 16.8 percent of all Medicaid care in Hillsborough County during 1982-83 and 17 percent during 1983-84. It is second to Tampa General in provision of health care to indigents in Hillsborough County. With the exception of Tampa General, St. Joseph's has the largest Medicaid patient admissions of all Hillsborough County hospitals. In 1986, the bad debt/charity care/Medicaid contractual discount for St. Joseph's was approximately $11.3 million. However, while 6.9 percent of all patient days county wide are Medicaid patient days, St. Joseph's has only 5 percent Medicaid patient days. The cost of indigent care is absorbed and offset by paying patients. St. Joseph's decision to seek approval for a satellite in the Carrollwood area is a wise business decision since there is a high percentage of paying patients residing in that area of Hillsborough County. St. Joseph's has a 23 percent market share of all patient days reported in Hillsborough County, the largest market share for all hospital medical- surgical services provided in the County, and also has the largest market share in the proposed service are of the satellite. Its market share of paying patients is much higher than for Medicaid or indigent patients. However, since 1984 St. Joseph's market share has been declining while Tampa General's has been increasing. A relatively high proportion of admissions at St. Joseph's current facility, over 40 percent, are obtained through its emergency room. The proposed satellite will have an emergency room, but it will not offer the same intensity of services as at the current facility on West Buffalo Avenue. The Department is the state agency with the authority and responsibility to consider CON applications. Intervenor Humana of Florida, d/b/a Tampa Women's Hospital (Humana) owns and operates a 192 bed women's hospital in Tampa, Florida, which includes 96 obstetrical beds. Its occupancy rate in 1986 was approximately 50 percent. Intervenor University Community Hospital (University) is an existing hospital with 404 licensed and 320 operating beds located on East Fletcher Avenue, Tampa, Florida, and offers a full range of acute care hospital services. University is located within the service area of the proposed satellite and has been experiencing a decline in patient days from 109,000 in 1983 to 84,000 in 1986. It has had to reduce its number of employees in the last three years by 15 percent-20 percent. University has a 57 percent occupancy rate. Intervenor Tampa General Hospital (Tampa General) operates a publically supported hospital in Tampa, Florida, providing a full range of acute care services, including obstetrical/gynecological services with 707 licensed and 619 operating beds. Tampa General has CON approval for 1000 beds if it completes planned renovations. It has an occupancy rate of 80 percent-82 percent and is treating 70 percent of all Medicaid patients in Hillsborough County. Tampa General has provided $70 million of indigent care, including $40 million in charity, annually. Carrollwood is within its service and marketing area. Intervenor AMI Town and Country Medical Center (Town and Country) is a 201 bed general acute care hospital located at 6001 Webb Road, Tampa, Florida. Its occupancy rate in 1986 was approximately 46 percent. There is no dispute among the parties regarding the standing of Intervenors in this proceeding. The occupancy rates at University, Town and Country and Humana are substantially below optimal levels, and substantial unused capacity exists at each of these hospitals. St. Joseph's proposed satellite will not offer any services that are not currently available to residents of the proposed service area, and will duplicate services at University, Town and Country, and Carrollwood Community Hospital, as well as services provided at St. Joseph's existing facility. The Application and Project On or about October 15, 1985 St. Joseph's filed with the Department an application for CON 4288. This application sought approval for a 150 bed general acute care satellite hospital in Carrollwood, Hillsborough County, Florida, and proposed the transfer of 150 existing licensed beds from St. Joseph's facility on West Buffalo Avenue, Tampa, to the satellite. The estimated total cost of this project was $16,775,000. Specifically, St. Joseph's proposed the transfer of 96 medical/surgical beds, including ICU, CCU and progressive care beds, 15 obstetrical beds and 39 pediatric beds, including PICU. The Department provided St. Joseph's with an omissions letter on or about November 14, 1985, to which St. Joseph's responded on or about December 30, 1985. By letter dated February 28, 1986, the Department preliminarily denied St. Joseph's application for CON 4288 stating, "The project is not justified by the 1985 District VI Health Plan or the 1985-87 Florida State Health Plan." The Department's decision to deny this application was published in Volume 12, Number 11, Florida Administrative Weekly, on March 14, 1986, and St. Joseph's filed its petition for formal administrative hearing on April 4, 1986. On or about February 18, 1987 St. Joseph's and the Department executed a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement which, in pertinent part, provides: DHRS finds and agrees that there is a need for St. Joseph's to relocate and transfer 100 acute-care beds (but not any licensed obstetrical beds) and acute-care services (but not any obstetrical services) from its existing acute-care hospital and construct a 100 bed acute-care satellite hospital in Hillsborough County in light of a balance review of all relevant criteria established by Section 381.494 Florida Statutes, including the levels of indigent and Medicaid care agreed to herein. The project will occur entirely within Hillsborough County and not result in any increase in licensed beds for St. Joseph's. DHRS agrees that a partial approval of the St. Joseph's CON Application will satisfy this need and that said application should be partially approved as hereinbelow further specified ... The agreements and commitments made by DHRS in paragraph 1 above are predicated on commitments made by St. Joseph's concerning its intention to provide certain percentages of Medicaid and indigent care in its proposed satellite hospital and to seek only partial approval of its application as specified herein... St. Joseph's commitments, which are relied upon by DHRS and which shall be set forth as conditions in said CON, are as follows: Not less than 3.5 percent of the total number of admissions at St. Joseph's satellite hospital shall be rendered to Medicaid patients. Not less than 3.0 percent of said total admissions shall be rendered to non-Medicaid "charity/uncompensated" patients whose family income as applicable for the twelve months prior to determination of eligibility is equal to or less than 150 percent of the then current Federal Poverty Guidelines. St. Joseph's shall obtain and retain sufficient information to verify this eligibility determination. The 3.0 percent "charity/uncompensated" patients shall be acknowledged as such at admission, shall not include patients receiving third party payments and shall be in addition to St. Joseph's "bad debt" patients... DHRS specifically recognizes the lengthy history and mission of St. Joseph's in providing extensive indigent care services in Hillsborough County. St. Joseph's agrees to undertake a diligent and good faith effort to encourage physicians on its medical staff to admit and treat Medicaid and charity/uncompensated care patients in such numbers as to comply with the minimum percentages established in paragraph (a)above ... (e) St. Joseph's agrees that it will request at hearing and henceforth seek only partial approval of its proposed CON Application, as follows: The satellite facility shall be reduced in scope from 150 licensed beds to 100 licensed beds. The number of licensed beds to be relocated from the existing St. Joseph's Hospital shall be reduced in scope from 150 licensed beds to 100 licensed beds. None of the licensed beds to be relocated to the satellite hospital shall include licensed obstetrical beds, nor shall the obstetrical services, if any, provided at St. Joseph's existing hospital be relocated to the satellite facility. Labor, delivery and nursery facilities shall be deleted from the satellite hospital. DHRS has consistently maintained the proposed square footage and project cost is inadequate for a 150 bed hospital and more appropriate for a 100 bed hospital. Therefore, the total square footage and total project cost shall remain unchanged... The Stipulation and Settlement Agreement referred to in Finding of Fact 21 was executed following, and in consideration of, additional information prepared and submitted by St. Joseph's to the Department on or about January 30, 1987 and February 9, 1987. At hearing, St. Joseph's and the Department sought partial approval of CON 4288 to conform to the terms of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. Intervenors opposed such partial approval. The partial approval sought by St. Joseph's and the Department represents an identifiable portion of St. Joseph's original CON application. Originally, St. Joseph's sought approval to transfer 150 acute care beds, including obstetrical, but at hearing St. Joseph's sought approval for a transfer of only 100 acute care beds, without obstetrical. Labor, delivery and nursery facilities have been deleted from the satellite proposal, but total square footage, physical designs and total cost of the project remain the same for the partial approval sought at hearing compared with the original application. The number of operating rooms has also remained the same. The proposed location in Carrollwood, Hillsborough County, remains unchanged. The project at issue in this case is a 100 bed acute care satellite hospital with, 96,500 total gross square footage (965 gross square feet per bed). The schematic plan submitted by St. Joseph's provides for the following beds and includes, but is not limited to, the following facilities: (72 private rooms, 2 Semi-private); pediatric beds (5 private, 5 semi-private), ICU/CCU (9 beds); space for radiology/nuclear medicine, emergency and outpatient services, laboratory, physical therapy, pharmacy, EEG/EKG, inhalation therapy, surgical suite, sterilization suite, cafeteria, laundry, storage, maintenance, chapel, nurses office, and other miscellaneous facilities. Total project costs are estimated at $16,775,000, the same as for the original 150 bed transfer proposal. The land upon which the satellite will be located was purchased for $3 million in cash. The satellite will be able to operate at a higher occupancy level than St. Joseph's existing hospital due to the larger proportion of single bed rooms and less severe cases being treated at the satellite. After review of St. Joseph's original application for the transfer of 150 acute care beds in March 1986, the Department concluded that the proposed gross square footage per bed of 643 was below the standard range of 800-1000 gross square feet per bed, and also that the total project cost estimate of $111,833 per bed was way below the average standard range of $175,000 to $200,000 per bed. After review of the identifiable portion of St. Joseph's application for which approval was sought at hearing, the Department concluded that the total gross square footage of the satellite, square footage per bed, construction estimates, and the total project cost estimates were reasonable and acceptable. The gross square footage was raised from 643 to 965, and the cost per bed was increased from $111,833 to $167,750. The Service Area The area which St. Joseph's proposes to serve with its satellite hospital is the Carrollwood area of northwest Hillsborough County which is located in the Department's District VI. This is the fastest growing area in Hillsborough County, with an average age which is lower than the rest of the County, and an average income level above the County average. Specifically, almost 35 percent of the population in the satellite's proposed primary service area was between 25 and 44 years old in 1980, compared with approximately 28 percent for the County. In the category of 65 years and older, the primary service area had 8.2 percent of its population, while the County had 11.4 percent. A higher percentage of paying patients reside within the proposed service area than for Hillsborough County as a whole. Nevertheless, 6 percent 7 percent of the service area population have incomes below the federal poverty level, compared with 16 percent for the County as a whole. The area is already served by Medicaid providers. St. Joseph's medical roster indicates over 140 of its physicians have offices in the satellite's proposed service area. However, approximately 100 of these physicians are also on the staffs of Intervenors. The site for the satellite was chosen after review of patient origin data and population growth projections for Hillsborough County. St. Joseph's is currently treating at its facility on West Buffalo avenue an average of 64 patients a day who reside within the proposed service area of the satellite and who are not cardiac, cancer or psychiatric patients. St. Joseph's has an average daily census of 519 patients and proposes to serve 64 of these patients, who reside within the satellite's primary service area, at the satellite. Stipulations The parties have stipulated that St. Joseph's is able to provide quality care at the proposed satellite, and also that St. Joseph's is not proposing or relying upon probable economies and improvements in service that may be derived from the operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources, except to the extent that the project includes a satellite facility. Intervenors contend that health services will be most economically provided by not constructing the satellite facility. Finally, the parties stipulate that Section 381.494(6)(c)11., Florida Statutes, relating to the provision of a substantial portion of services or resources to individuals not residing in the service district in which the entities are located, or adjacent thereto, is not applicable in this case. Non-Rule Policy for Bed Transfers The Department currently has no rule governing the transfer of acute care beds. Rule 10-5.011(1)(m), previously Rule 10-5.11(23), does not apply to acute care transfers since it addresses new or additional beds. However, the Department has begun developing a departmental policy for review of acute care transfer applications which do not request additional beds, and is seeking industry and staff input for the concepts expressed in a draft policy. In its current conceptual form, the transfer policy follows the statutory review criteria as they might apply to transfer applications which do not request new beds. The emerging policy, urges review of acute care transfer applications with emphasis upon the following health care planning criteria: reduction of excess beds, better utilization of existing beds, the encouragement of hospital efficiency, improvement of financial and geographic access, the encouragement of quality care, and the encouragement of competition in the hospital industry. St. Joseph's partial approval request was reviewed for conformity with this emerging policy by Robert Sharpe, the Department's Director of Comprehensive Health Planning (the state's chief health planner), who is charged with development of the bed transfer policy. Bed reduction is a key element for consideration in the Department's emerging policy. However, St. Joseph's 79-80 percent occupancy is greater than the Department's 75 percent hospital occupancy threshold contained in the acute care rule (Rule 10-5.011(1)(m)). Application of a bed reduction formula is not reasonable, according to Sharpe, for a facility which is using its beds to a much greater extent than other facilities in the County. The Department's emerging policy would evaluate whether a proposed transfer of beds to a new site would encourage a better use of the beds than at the existing site. The emerging policy contemplates transfers of acute care beds within a single county or subdistrict in an effort to be responsive to the needs of communities. This concept is consistent with the District VI Local Health Plan's stated desire that planning occur on less than a county basis. The Department's emerging policy evaluates the relative efficiency of the hospital proposing a bed transfer. In evaluating the relative charges made by similar Florida hospitals, the Hospital Cost Containment Board has devised hospital groupings for evaluation purposes. Of the 23 hospitals that are characterized as "group nine" hospitals in Florida, St. Joseph's ranks 16th of those 23 and is below the 50th percentile in gross revenues per adjusted admission. This means that St. Joseph's has lower charges per adjusted admission than most of the other comparable hospitals in Florida. Despite the fact that St. Joseph's is a large tertiary facility, Hospital Cost Containment Board data establishes that St. Joseph's is an efficient hospital facility. Another aspect of the Department's emerging policy is that of improving Medicaid and indigent access for patients. Excluding Tampa General, St. Joseph's has more Medicaid patient admissions than all other hospitals in Hillsborough County. During the past four years, St. Joseph's has consistently provided approximately 17 percent of the Medicaid care to hospital patients in Hillsborough County. The Department considers St. Joseph's to be an indigent care facility in Hillsborough County. The Department also considers geographic access when reviewing transfers. The State Health Plan has an objective that 90 percent of the population in an urban area be within 30 minutes drive time to an acute care facility by 1989. The Local Health Plan has concluded that all of Hillsborough County is currently within a 30 minute drive time. The quality of care provided by a facility proposing a transfer is also considered, and the parties have stipulated that St. Joseph's will provide quality health care services. The Department examines the competitive affects of approval of a transfer of acute care beds. In this case, the charge levels, costs per admission, and current inventory of beds at Hillsborough County acute care hospitals were examined. Since St. Joseph's charges and costs are low relative to other hospitals, and since there is an excess of beds in the County, the Department assumed that there would be competition for existing patients, and further concluded that approval of the satellite facility would promote price and non-price competition among hospitals in Hillsborough County. Considering each of the outlined elements of the Department's emerging policy, the state's chief health planner testified that the emerging policy supports the requested approval of an identifiable portion of the St. Joseph's satellite application. Need And Consistency With State and Local Plans Health planning for CON purposes involves the assessment of need on a community-wide, rather, than an institution specific, basis. Planning on less than a county-wide basis is inappropriate in Hillsborough County. In 1986 there was an excess capacity of 1400 acute care beds in Hillsborough County. District VI is overbedded by nearly 700 beds. The Local Health Council projects that in 1992 there will still be a surplus of nearly 800 beds in the County. Since this application proposes the transfer of beds, it neither increases or decreases this excess capacity. The State Health Plan as well as the Department's non-rule policy recommends eliminating excess bed capacity, but this proposal is not consistent with that recommendation. Existing acute care hospitals in Hillsborough County experienced only percent occupancy in 1986, a drop from 71 percent in 1984. Patient days have declined at an average of 2.6 percent per year since 1983 while the population in Hillsborough County actually increased 11.2 percent during this time. In spite of a significant reduction in hospital utilization and average lengths of stay in the area, the number of licensed hospital beds in Hillsborough County increased from 3,028 in 1981 to 3,457 in 1986, an increase of 14.2 percent or 429 beds. The State Health Plan contains a stated goal of 80 percent occupancy by 1989. The Local Health Plan recognizes 80 percent for medical-surgical and ICU/CCU occupancy for all beds in the County and 90 percent occupancy for each institution. Only Tampa General and St. Joseph's are currently achieving these occupancy level goals. In fact, occupancy rates for the five hospitals within, or adjacent to, the proposed satellite's service area range from 40 percent to percent. Based upon review and consideration of the expert testimony and evidence presented at hearing, it is found that an acceptable hospital optimum occupancy rate would be from 75 percent to 85 percent overall, and 90 percent for medical-surgical beds. Of the 649 beds currently at St. Joseph's, on average there are 149 unoccupied beds on any given day. St. Joseph's proposal does not address the key element of the State Health Plan and the Department's non-rule policy which calls for bed reduction when transfers are considered. This failure is particularly significant in view of the substantial overbedding which currently exists in Hillsborough County and which is projected to exist through 1992. To the contrary, the proposal actually would result in a net increase of 3 coronary care unit beds and 3 pediatric intensive care unit beds. The most important stated purpose of the acute care policies in the 1985 District VI Health Plan is "optimizing utilization of existing resources", and this purpose is implemented through a policy that provides, "Suture changes in the hospital facilities and services systems should occur so as to maintain the fiscal and programmatic integrity of all institutions providing a full range of services... " This proposal is inconsistent with this aspect of the Local Health Plan since it does not reduce the number of excess beds, while at the same time it would transfer 100 beds to a predominantly affluent, young and growing area of the County from which St. Joseph's would realize a substantial number of paying, as opposed to indigent or Medicaid, patients. This could reasonably be expected to increase St. Joseph's already very strong patient payor mix, and increase occupancy rates above 80 percent while other facilities are at or below 50 percent. At the same time, this proposal could actually weaken St. Joseph's financial position since its margin of revenue over expenses was 12.5 percent in 1985 and 10 percent in 1986, and the pro forma for the satellite, although overly optimistic as discussed below, shows only a 4.8 percent margin in the second year of operation. Underutilization of existing facilities is not consistent with sound health care planning because it ultimately results in higher costs to patients. Other facilities currently serving the proposed service area will be more likely to achieve optimum occupancy levels if the satellite is not built, than if it is. Another important purpose of the Local Health Plan is "promoting access for the indigent and underserved population to adequate health care," a purpose also stated in the Department's non-rule policy. The service area of the proposed satellite has a median family income of $30,132 which is 26 percent higher than for Hillsborough County as a whole. Locating a hospital in a predominantly affluent area, does not generally increase access for indigents. In fact, by the terms of its Settlement Agreement, St. Joseph's will actually decrease its commitment to Medicaid patients from the current 5 percent to the proposed 3 percent at the satellite. The percentage of charity care to gross revenues at St. Joseph's in 1986 was .6 percent, and was budgeted at .5 percent for 1987. This is not a significant charity commitment in relation to gross revenues, and the satellite proposal will not improve this commitment. The State Health Plan states as an objective achieving a ratio of less than 4.11 beds per thousand by 1989. This proposal does not promote this objective because it does not represent any net reduction in total number of beds. This proposal is also inconsistent with the State Health Plan which recommends a minimum pediatric size of 20 beds since it will have only 18. Need In Relation to Geographic Accessibility According to the 1985 District VI Health Plan, "The geographic distribution of hospital services in Hillsborough County is such that the entire population is within the 30 minute drive time standard of adequate resources." Ernest J. Peters, who was accepted as an expert in traffic engineering, testified that the entire proposed satellite service area is within 30 minutes of at least one existing hospital. The 30 minute drive time standard is set forth as Objective 2.2 in the 1985-87 State Health Plan. Residents of the proposed service area have geographic accessibility to hospital services within a 30 minute drive time. St. Joseph's does not dispute this fact, but rather Barbara Myres-Fernandez, who was not accepted as an expert in traffic studies, testified that at peak travel times the 30 minute standard was exceeded. However, according to Robert Sharpe, the Department's Director of Comprehensive Health Planning, who was accepted as an expert in health care planning, as well as Ward Koutnik and Ernest J. Peters, who were accepted as experts in traffic engineering, all of the proposed service area is within 30 minutes of existing hospital facilities. Peters testified that if the satellite is built, travel times to the nearest hospital would only be improved by 2.77 minutes for Carrollwood residents in 1990. The weighted average travel time, according to Peters, for the entire proposed service area to the nearest acute care hospital is 13.13 minutes, which will only increase to 13.96 minutes in 1990. The evidence therefore establishes that there would be an insubstantial geographic access gain to Hillsborough County residents if the satellite is approved, and in any event need based upon a lack of geographic accessibility has not been established. Need In Relation to Financial Accessibility According to Myres-Fernandez, it is St. Joseph's contention on the issue of accessibility that approval of the satellite will improve financial accessibility to hospital services for indigent and Medicaid patients. In order to maintain its commitment to indigent, Medicare and charity care, St. Joseph's argues it must continue to attract and maintain its market share of private pay patients, and the Carrollwood area provides a growing source of such patients. However, according to St. Joseph's, 64 of the patients to be treated at the satellite are already being treated at West Buffalo Avenue. These 64 do not include cardiac, cancer or psychiatric patients. Therefore, only 16 "new" patients would be served at the satellite if it were to achieve the goal of 80 percent occupancy. Even with St. Joseph's predicted 90 percent occupancy rate, only 26 "new" patients would be served. No evidence was offered to establish that a higher level of indigents should be expected at the satellite hospital than at St. Joseph's existing facility, particularly since in its Agreement with the Department, St. Joseph's has committed to serve a lower percentage of indigents than is presently true at the main facility on West Buffalo. St. Joseph's current payor mix is very favorable, and no reasons have been shown why it should deteriorate in the foreseeable future. In fact, the mix may actually be improving, according to Hospital Cost Containment Board data. Indigent access to health care is not improved by locating a satellite hospital in a predominantly affluent area in which only 6-7 percent of the population is below the poverty level, as compared to 16 percent for the County as a whole. This proposal represents a wise business decision by St. Joseph's because it is an attempt to increase its number of private pay patients. However, it will not improve indigent access. Financial accessibility is a criteria to be evaluated under Section 381.494(6),(c), Florida Statutes, and the Department's non-rule policy. This proposal does not improve access for indigents and therefore is not consistent with this statutory and policy criterion. Availability and Adequacy of Alternatives There are five existing hospitals within, or adjacent to, the proposed service area with substantial unused capacity, including University and Carrollwood Community Hospital which is a 120 bed facility offering general acute care, emergency room and outpatient services. Carrollwood Community Hospital has an occupancy rate of approximately 50 percent, and thus has excess capacity. While one-third of its patients are osteopathic, two-thirds are allopathic; only one-fifth of its physician staff is comprised of osteopaths. The proposed service area of the satellite is within the current service areas of Intervenors. Thus, adequate alternative facilities are available to residents in the Carrollwood area. Since there are existing alternative acute care facilities within thirty minutes of the proposed service area, an ambulatory surgical center might be an appropriate alternative to the satellite proposal. However, St. Joseph's did not explore such an alternative, and presented no evidence to establish the basis for its assertion that this would not be appropriate. Such a facility could maintain and even enhance referral patterns to the main facility on West Buffalo. Additionally, it has not been shown that splitting St. Joseph's 649 beds between two locations will be more efficient than leaving all 649 beds on West Buffalo, and thereby saving the $16,775,000 in capital expense to construct the satellite. Therefore, alternatives to the construction of a satellite facility do exist, and St. Joseph's has not shown that such alternatives are less feasible or less efficient than the satellite proposal at issue. Needs For Special Equipment and Services It has not been established that any need exists within the proposed service area for special equipment and services which this proposal would provide, and which are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. Need For Research and Educational Facilities It has not been shown that any need exists in the proposed service area for research and educational facilities which this application would address. Availability of Manpower During the hearing, the parties stipulated to the adequacy of the staffing patterns proposed by St. Joseph's for the 100 bed satellite, and also their ability to recruit and fill those staffing needs. Approval of this satellite would not have an adverse impact on Intervenors' ability to attract or retain qualified staff since the staff for the satellite would be primarily transferred from the West Buffalo Avenue facility along with the transfer of 100 beds. Since 64 patients who reside in the satellite's service area are currently being treated at the West Buffalo Avenue site, staff who serve these patients will be transferred to the satellite when it opens. Additionally, St. Joseph's conducts an extensive recruitment program outside, as well as within, the Hillsborough County area. It is therefore unlikely that staff for the satellite will come in any significant number from any of the Intervenors. It is recognized that there is almost a 20 percent vacancy level for registered nurses in District VI, and a 33 percent vacancy level for critical care nurses. However, St. Joseph's turn-over rate is relatively low, and therefore it is reasonable to expect that the satellite would be staffed predominantly with staff already employed at the West Buffalo location. Availability of Funds St. Joseph's revenues exceeded expenses by $10-$12 million for fiscal year ending June 30, 1986, and it is among the five most profitable hospitals in the State. It has no long term debt, and is the only facility of its size in Florida which has no debt. Financially, St. Joseph's is in an extremely sound position. St. Joseph's has the ability to financially support the satellite facility and to internally finance its construction. Third-party financing is also being considered. However, its operating margin will decrease slightly as a result of the construction of the satellite. Historically, it has realized an operating margin exceeding 10 percent, although it projects a profit margin of slightly under 5 percent for fiscal year 1987. Financial Feasibility St. Joseph's proposed satellite's total gross revenue for the first two years of operation was determined by multiplying the current average bed rate at the facility on West Buffalo by the expected occupancy. Proposed deductions from revenue were also based upon St. Joseph's historical experience. Assumptions utilized to prepare the satellite's pro forma relied upon St. Joseph's historical information, including but not limited to revenues, fixed expenses and variable expenses. St. Joseph's used a patient admission rate of 125 per 1,000, and a proposed average length of stay of 6 days compared with a current average length of stay at the main facility of 7-7.2 days. A basic assumption used by St. Joseph's was that on the first day of operation, 64 patients currently being treated at the main facility who reside in the Carrollwood area, will be transferred to the satellite for treatment, and thereafter an average of 64 of the satellite's beds will be occupied each day by Carrollwood residents who would have sought treatment at the West Buffalo location in the absence of the satellite. St. Joseph's assumed a case mix intensity level of 1.36 for the satellite, compared with 1.46-1.48 at the West Buffalo location. A decrease in the case mix index results in a corresponding decrease in revenues and expenses. Complex hospitalizations receive a high case mix index, and simple procedures receive a low case mix index. St. Joseph's did not conclusively establish that 64 patients presently at the main facility, except for cardiac, cancer and psychiatric patients, who reside in the service area of the satellite could be transferred on the first day of operation, or that this daily census could be maintained. Physician and patient preferences determine where a patient is admitted. Severity of illness or age of the patient are also factors. Admissions through the emergency room, which account for nearly 50 percent of the admissions on West Buffalo, cannot be redirected. It has not been shown that physicians or patients would prefer admission to a satellite, or that the very severe cases or aged patients, as well as emergency room admissions, could be redirected away from the main facility. While the satellite will have an emergency room, the satellite will not be equipped to handle the complexity of cases presently admitted on West Buffalo. Additionally, transferring 64 patients by ambulance on the first day of operation from West Buffalo to the satellite, in the middle of treatment, has not been shown to be reasonable or feasible, or that physicians and patients would tolerate such a procedure. The opening of a satellite usually begins incrementally and gradually while staff becomes familiar with the new facility and equipment. St. Joseph's has not shown that it is feasible to open the satellite with an immediate occupancy of 64 percent on day one, and 82 percent in the first year of operation. Historically, occupancy levels at satellites run between 20 percent-40 percent the first year. Forecasted revenues are unrealistic because St. Joseph's basic assumption about the transfer of 64 Carrollwood residents is unreasonable and unsubstantiated. St. Joseph's has also failed to correctly and fully estimate salary expenses at the satellite because salary estimates do not account for shift and weekend differentials paid to nurses. More than 50 percent of nurses at St. Joseph's receive shift differential pay, which is a 15 percent increase above their base hourly rate. Given the age of the service area population, a more accurate use rate for the satellite would be between 90 and 95 admissions per 1,000 population, rather than the 125 per 1,000 used by St. Joseph's. The lower use-rate reduces the available pool of patients in the service area from 136 estimated by St. Joseph's to 109. 94 Assumptions based on historical data from the main facility are inappropriate for developing the satellite's pro forma because the satellite will treat less complex cases than the main facility, and the age and income levels in the satellite's service area are significantly different from the County as a whole. Rather than a case mix index of 1.36, an average satellite and community hospital case mix index is 1.00. Using a corrected case mix index of 1.00 rather than 1.36, results in a projected loss for the satellite rather than a profit in its second year of operation. Because construction and operation of the satellite will reduce St. Joseph's overall operating margin below 5 percent-6 percent, which is a minimum standard, St. Joseph's will be less able to provide charity, indigent and Medicaid care after construction of the satellite than it is currently. Impact On Health Care Costs St. Joseph's proposal to spend approximately $16 million on construction of the satellite to serve from 16 to 26 "new" patients could reasonably be expected to adversely affect health care costs. This is exacerbated by the shelled-in space at both the satellite and the existing facility. The size of the satellite was not reduced when beds were reduced from 150 to 100, and the St. Joseph's architect testified there is enough square footage to add back the 50 beds. Despite St. Joseph's assertions that it will not increase rates to subsidize the satellite as a business investment in its own future, it appears reasonable to expect that rates would have to be increased if St. Joseph's is to maintain its historical profit margin, and to offset its failure to properly project salaries, use rates and the case mix index at the satellite. The satellite will continue to lose money through its second year of operation, and this would have to be recouped through increased charges, or reduced profit margins, which could then be expected to result in a reduced ability to fund charity, indigent and Medicaid patients. Project Costs Construction cost estimates are reasonable. The estimated cost for fixed equipment for a 150 bed satellite facility was reduced by $250,000 to reflect the decrease cost of moving 50 beds and the obstetrical surgical suite. This $250,000 savings provides an inflationary contingency in case of construction delays, and while it does increase construction costs from $9,650,000 to 9,900,000, it does not have a negative impact on the appropriateness of the proposed construction costs. Equipment cost estimates as well as total project cost estimates, with the exception of salary estimates, are reasonable. Admitting Practices St. Joseph's has a written admissions policy which requires that it receive patients regardless of their ability to pay. There is no evidence that St. Joseph has ever denied admission to any patient in a life threatening situation. It is standard practice at St. Joseph's to request a deposit on admission and to inform patients that arrangements for payment can be made upon discharge. However, inability to pay the deposit or to make financial arrangements does not result in a patient being denied admission. Patients who are unable to pay are sometimes admitted at St. Joseph's through, the emergency room when a physician sends such patients to the emergency room. Effect On Competition Enhancement of future competition is a factor which is considered under the Department's non-rule transfer policy There is substantial competition among acute care hospitals in Hillsborough County which are currently engaged in aggressive marketing campaigns. Dominance by one provider in a market can be anti-competitive, and at the present time St. Joseph's is the dominant provider for paying patients in Hillsborough County. The current market shares for hospitals already serving the satellite's proposed service area are: St. Joseph's - 33.45 percent; University - 28.92 percent; Town and Country - 17.72 percent; Tampa General - 11.06 percent; and Carrollwood Community - 8.86 percent. The satellite will allow St. Joseph's market share to increase and possibly approach 40 percent. Such market dominance is not consistent with a competitive market. St. Joseph's increase in market share will take patients away from the other hospitals now serving the Carrollwood area, particularly University which receives almost 38 percent of all its patients from this area. University is already projecting an operating loss for fiscal year 1987 of $563,000. Tampa General is a disproportionate provider of indigent services in the County. The Local Health Plan has as one of its objectives protecting such providers of indigent care. Tampa General lost $12 million in fiscal 1983, and in order to improve its financial condition embarked on a $160 million renovation and building effort. It is now indebted to bondholders in that amount. Tampa General's payor mix has begun to improve, and it is actively marketing in the proposed service area. Approval of this project will not further the Local Health Plan objective of protecting disproportionate indigent providers, because it will result in the loss to Tampa General of a significant number of paying patients.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order denying St. Joseph's application for CON 4288 for the establishment of a satellite hospital with the transfer of 100 acute care beds. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Rulings on St. Joseph's Proposed Findings of Fact are as follows: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact86. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 38, 54. Adopted in Findings of Fact 38, 6, 70, 54. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as irrelevant and not supported by competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 44. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6, 38, 70. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 30-34. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 108. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 41-43. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as speculative, irrelevent and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 21, 23, 50. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected in Findings of Fact 59, 68. Rejected in Findings of Fact 65, 71, 97, 106. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 18, 21, 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 67, but rejected in 89, 90. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 67. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Rejected as not based competent substantial evidence, and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. 62-63. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 64-65. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Rejected in Findings of Fact 11, 72. Rejected in Findings of Fact 65, 72. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. 70-71. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Rejected as unnecessary and not based competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6, 70. Rejected as irrelevant and speculative. 75-76. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 77-78. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected in Findings of Fact 59, 60, 68, 70, 95. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6, 70. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 83-91. Rejected in Findings of Fact 7, 105 and otherwise rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 39. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. Adopted in Finding of Fact 44 104-105. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 45. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Rejected in Findings of Fact 47, 106, 107, 108. Adopted in Finding of Fact 48. 111-122. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 64, 65, and otherwise irrelevant and cumulative. Rejected in Findings of Fact 68, 70, 71. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 70. Adopted in Finding of Fact 78. Adopted in Finding of Fact 78. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 80. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81. 131-133. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 134. Adopted in Findings of Fact 78, 83, 98, 99. 135-138. Rejected in Findings of Fact 50, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 65, 71, 108. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 59, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary and not based competent substantial evidence. 141-146. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 147. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 148. Rejected in Findings of Fact 50, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 65, 71, 108. Rejected in Finding of Fact 75. Rejected in Finding of Fact 73. Rejected in Findings of Fact 72-75. 152-153. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 89, 90 but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 154-155. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 72. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 107. Rejected as unnecessary and speculative. Rejected in Findings of Fact 87, 89. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 166-169. Rejected as irrelevant. 170-171. Rejected in Finding of Fact 106. 172. Rejected as unnecessary. 173-174. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence and irrelevant. 175. Rejected as unnecessary. 176-177. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 83. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected in Findings of Fact 91-94. Adopted and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 83. Rejected in Findings of Fact 84-95. 185-189. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 85 but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Rejected in Finding of Fact 97. Adopted in Finding of Fact 85. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. 194-195. Rejected in Finding of Fact 92. 196-197. Rejected as unnecessary. 198. Adopted in Finding of Fact 85. 199-200. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 86 and rejected in Finding of Fact 93. Adopted in Finding of Fact 86. Adopted in Finding of Fact 87. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Findings of Fact 89, 90, 91. Adopted in Finding of Fact,.88. Adopted in Finding of Fact 88, but rejected in Finding of Fact 94. Adopted in Finding of Fact 88. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 89. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Finding of fact 43. 213-217. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 218. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 97, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant. 219-220. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 98. 224-233. Missing. Adopted in Finding of Fact 98. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 24, but otherwise rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 236-241. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 96. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 245-246. Adopted in Finding of Fact 100. 247. Adopted in Finding of Fact 102. 248-250. Adopted in Findings of Fact 100, 101. 251. Adopted in Findings of Fact 100-102. 252-253. Adopted in Finding of Fact 101 Adopted in Finding of Fact 102. Adopted in Findings of Fact 100-102. 256-259. Rejected as cumulative. 260. Rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. Adopted in Finding of Fact 44. Rejected as cumulative. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 45. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 48. Rulings on University Community Hospital's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 20. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 20. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 48. Adopted in Findings of Fact 50, 56. Adopted in Findings of Fact 51, 52, 57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 59. Adopted in Finding of Fact 61. 13-14. Rejected as unnecessary. 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 58, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 16-17. Adopted; in Findings of Fact 63-65. 18. Rejected as irrelevant 19-21. Adopted in Findings of Fact 68-71. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Findings of Fact 72, 76, 77, 104. Adopted in Findings of Fact 56, 81. Adopted in Findings of Fact 80, 81 and otherwise rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 27-35. Adopted in Findings of Fact 85-94 but otherwise rejected, as cumulative and unnecessary. 36-38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 85, 94. 39-40. Adopted in Findings of Fact 88, 94. Adopted in Finding of Fact 94. Adopted in Finding of Fact 92. Adopted in Finding of Fact 73. 44-49. Adopted in Findings of Fact 96, 97 but otherwise rejected as cumulative, irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 105. Adopted in Finding of Fact 69. Adopted in Finding of Fact 69, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Findings of Fact 68, 95, 97. Adopted in Finding of Fact 60. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Findings of Fact 38, 50. Adopted in Finding of Fact 55, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. 63-65. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 104. Adopted in Finding of Fact 105. Adopted in Findings of Fact 82, 83. Adopted in Finding of Fact 105. 70-71. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 72. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 106, but otherwise rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 73-76. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 96, 97, but otherwise rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 95, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 91, 97, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1,1, 107. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 82-84. Adopted-in Finding of Fact 107, but otherwise rejected as cumulative. Rulings on Tampa General's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 33, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 8-9. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 1, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 12-13. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 82, 83, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7, 29, 57, 69, 105. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10, 72. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 72. Adopted in Findings of Fact 49, 50. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 72, but otherwise rejected as cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. 25-26. Rejected as irrelevant. 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 28-35. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 17, 21, 24, 25, 28, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 83, 97. Adopted in Findings of Fact 34, 35. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 39-44. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63-65, but otherwise rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 45-51. Adopted in Findings of Fact 66-71, but otherwise rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 52-55. Adopted in Findings of Fact 36, 38, 50, 56, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 104. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14, 16, 72, 106. Adopted in Finding of Fact 106. Adopted in Findings of Fact 105, 106, 107. Adopted in Finding of Fact 108. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 74. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 64-65. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 74, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16 Adopted in Finding of Fact 73. 68-69. Rejected as unnecessary and without specific citations to the record. 70-73. Adopted in Findings of Fact 91, 94, 95, 97, but otherwise rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 81, 97. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 57, but otherwise rejected as cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 107. 77-83. Adopted in Finding of Fact 108, but otherwise rejected as cumulative and irrelevant. Rulings on Town and Country's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-3. Introductory matters. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. 12-16. Adopted in Findings of Fact 87, 89, 90. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 18-24. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 25-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 67, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 27. Rejected as without citation to the record and cumulative. 28-37. Adopted in Findings of Fact 86, 93, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 38-39. Adopted in Findings of Fact 106-108. Rejected as without citation to record and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 50, 51. 42-44. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. Adopted in Finding of Fact 52. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 12, 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 13, 72. 48. Rejected as without citation to the record and unnecessary 49-51. Rejected as unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence Adopted in Finding of Fact 50. Rejected as without citation to the record and unnecessary. 54-55. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. 56. Adopted in Finding of Fact 54. 57-58. Adopted in Finding of Fact 58. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 60. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 60. 63-64. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 70. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Findings of Fact 71, 95. 68-70. Adopted in Findings of Fact 45, 63-65. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 103-108. 73-74. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 75-77. Adopted in Findings of Fact 82, 83. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. Rejected as cumulative. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 105. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. Rejected in Finding of Fact 99. 85-92. Rejected in Finding of Fact 98, and otherwise rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 93-96. Rejected in Finding of Fact 99, and otherwise rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 97. Rejected as unnecessary. 99-103. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 104-105. Adopted in Findings of Fact 95, 97, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 95. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 95. Adopted in Finding of Fact 97. Adopted in Findings of Fact 95, 97. 111-114. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 115-116. Adopted in Finding of Fact 97, but otherwise rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 117. Rejected as without citations to the record. 118-119. Adopted in Finding of Fact 88. 120-122. Adopted in Finding of Fact 94. 123. Rejected as cumulative and without citations to the record. 124-128. Adopted in Finding of Fact 92, but otherwise rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 129-130. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 131-133. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 134. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Rulings on Humana's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. 8-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 11-12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 13-14. Rejected as cumulative. 15-17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 50. Adopted in Findings of Fact 53, 54. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. 20-21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 52. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. Adopted in Finding of Fact 55. 24-41. Adopted in Findings of Fact 45, 63-65, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 42-46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 59. 50-51. Adopted in Finding of Fact 60. 52. Rejected as unnecessary. 53-55. Adopted in Findings of Fact 85-95, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 56-57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 90. 58-66. Adopted in Findings of Fact 86, 93, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 67-71. Adopted in Findings of Fact 87, 89, 90, 91. Adopted in Finding of Fact 88. Rejected in Finding of Fact 88. Rejected as cumulative. 75-77. Adopted in Finding of Fact 94, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 78-81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 92. 82-85. Rejected as unnecessary. 86-92. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 97, but otherwise rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 93-94. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 95. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 4, 12. 96-97. Adopted in Findings of Fact 105, 106, 107. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 61. 100-101. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63-65. 102. Adopted in Finding of Fact 50. 103-104. Rejected as cumulative. 105-107. Adopted in Findings of Fact 57, 107, 108. 108-109. Adopted in Finding of Fact 60. 110-114. Adopted in Findings of Fact 82, 83, but otherwise rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 108. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative. 118-119. Adopted in Finding of Fact 62. 120-121. Adopted in Findings of Fact 72-75. 122. Adopted in Findings of Fact 50, 56. 123-125. Rejected in Finding of Fact 28 and as not based competent substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Ivan Wood, Esquire WOOD, LUCKSINGER & EPSTEIN The Park in Houston Center 1221 Lamar Street, Suite 1400 Houston, Texas 77010 Howard J. Hochman, Esquire Southeast Financial Center 200 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 3700 Miami, Florida 33131 James C. Hauser, Esquire Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John Radey, Esquire 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1000 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Cynthia Tunnicliff, Esquire Post Office Box 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esquire Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Promise Healthcare of Florida III, Inc.'s (Promise) Certificate of Need (CON) Application No. 9870 should be approved to establish a 40-bed freestanding Long Term Care Hospital (LTCH) in Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or Agency) Service District 3.
Findings Of Fact Parties AHCA. The Agency for Health Care Administration is the state agency authorized to evaluate and render final determinations on CON applications to pursuant to Section 408.034(1), Florida Statutes. Promise. Promise Healthcare of Florida, III, Inc. (Promise) is the applicant in this proceeding. Promise is a newly-formed and wholly-owned subsidiary of Promise Healthcare, Inc. (Promise Healthcare). Promise Healthcare is a Florida corporation headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Promise Healthcare was established in July 2003 when it acquired the assets of Camelot Healthcare. Promise Healthcare owns and operates 13 LTCHs in six other states; seven freestanding facilities and six hospitals- within-hospitals. One additional freestanding LTCH is scheduled to begin operation in 2007 in Bossier, Louisiana. Promise Healthcare does not presently operate any facilities, including LTCHs, in Florida. CON applications and preliminary agency action Promise timely filed an appropriate letter of intent, which contained the information requested by AHCA. Promise timely applied for a CON to establish a 40-bed freestanding LTCH in Lake County, one county of the 16 counties in District 3. The project will consist of 47,951 square feet at construction costs of $11,244,400 and a total project cost estimated at $20,901,826. As a condition of approval, Promise agreed to provide two percent of patient days of Medicaid and charity care. During the same batching cycle, Select Specialty and Leesburg Regional filed CON applications to provide LTCH services in District 3. All applications were deemed complete and comparatively reviewed by AHCA. The numbers and assumptions in Schedule 1 of Promise's CON application represent reasonable projections. The information contained in Schedule 2, 3, and 6, and the assumptions relating to Schedule 3 and 6 represent reasonable projections. The information contained in Schedule 4 is not required. The information contained in Schedules 9 and 10 represent reasonable estimates, including the days required to complete the project. The Agency's review of the CON application complied with all statutory and regulatory requirements. The Agency's review of the CON applications resulted in the issuance of a State Agency Action Report (SAAR) on December 16, 2005. The Agency recommended the denial of the three CON applications. Leesburg Regional and Select Specialty requested formal administrative hearings, but dismissed their cases prior to the final hearing. Promise argues there is a need for additional LTCH beds and services in District 3 and AHCA disagrees. AHCA also argues Promise cannot obtain the required funds to build and operate the LTCH. LTCH services The classes of facilities licensed as hospitals by the Agency, "Class I or general hospitals" include long term care hospitals, which are identified as having an average length of patient stay (ALOS) of 25 days for all beds, Section 408.032(13), Florida Statutes, and also comply with 42 C.F.R. Section 412.23(e)(1994). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.002(28). Some hospital patients need acute care services on a long-term basis. A long-term basis is 25 to 34 days of additional acute care service after the typical stay in a short- term hospital. Although some of these patients are "custodial" in nature and not in need of LTCH services, many of these long- term patients may be better served in a LTCH than in a traditional short-term acute care hospital. LTCHs typically furnish extended medical and rehabilitation care for patients who are clinically complex and have multiple acute or chronic conditions. Patients appropriate for LTCH services are differentiated from other hospital patients in that, by definition, they have multiple co- morbidities that require concurrent treatment. Patients appropriate for LTCH services tend to be elderly, frail, and are usually regarded as catastrophically ill. Generally, Medicare patients admitted to LTCHs have been transferred from general acute care hospitals and receive a range of services at LTCHs, including cardiac monitoring, ventilator support, and wound care. These patients require daily physician involvement, extensive nursing care, and appropriate respiratory, occupational, speech, and physical therapies, usually accompanied by some type of technologically advanced support. Quite commonly, the technological support includes a ventilator. The level of care provided in an LTCH is generally analogous to that provided in an ICU (Intensive Care Unit) in a short-term acute care hospital. However, the staff at general acute care hospitals has different orientations than staff at LTCHs. The staff at general acute care hospitals is geared toward shorter lengths of stay (five days or less) than are more typical in an LTCH, where extended lengths of stay are more appropriate. An LTCH is distinguished within the health care continuum by the high level of care the patient requires, the interdisciplinary treatment model it follows, and the duration of the patient's hospitalization, which averages 25 days or more for patients requiring complex medical care. Within the continuum of care, LTCHs occupy a niche between traditional acute care hospitals that provide initial hospitalization care on a short-term basis and post-acute care facilities such as nursing homes, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), skilled nursing units (SNUs), and comprehensive medical rehabilitation facilities (CMRs). The complex medical, nursing, and therapeutic requirements necessary to serve the LTCH patient with a high acuity level are generally beyond the capability of these other post-acute care facilities on a sustained basis, i.e., 25 days or more. Services provided in LTCHs are also distinct from those provided in SNFs or SNUs. The latter are not oriented generally to patients who need daily physician visits or the intense nursing services or observations needed by an LTCH patient. Additionally, most nursing homes provide two to three hours of nursing care per patient per day, whereas LTCHs provide on average in excess of seven hours of nursing care per patient day. Families and other caregivers play a critical role regarding the delivery of care to LTCH patients. Many LTCH patients are elderly and are a special population, with special needs. They commonly have to manage multiple problems, including financial difficulties, drug management, transportation logistics, and sometimes fragile mental and physical conditions. Older patients as well as older caregivers also have a more difficult time driving, for example, two hours and over long distances. The federal government recognition of LTCHs Within the continuum of care, the federal government's Medicare program recognizes LTCHs as distinct providers of services to patients with high levels of acuity. The federal government treats LTCH care as a discrete form of care and provides a separate Medicare payment system of diagnostic related groups (DRGs) and case mix reimbursement that provides Medicare payments at rates different from what the Prospective Payment System (PPS) provides for other traditional post-acute providers. Under the LTCH reimbursement system, each patient is assigned a DRG with a corresponding payment rate that is weighted based upon the patient's diagnosis. LTCHs are reimbursed the predetermined payment rate for that DRG, regardless of the costs of care. These rates are higher than what the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) provides for other traditional post-acute care providers. Effective October 1, 2002, CMS established a new prospective payment system for long-term care hospital providers, the "LTC-DRG". CMS recognizes the patient population of LTCHs as separate and distinct from the population treated by short-term acute care hospitals and by other post-acute care providers, as well as costs of care, resources consumed by the patients and health care delivery. Since the establishment of the PPS for LTCHs, concerns about the high reimbursement rate for LTCHs, as well as about the appropriateness of the patients treated in LTCHs, have been raised by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) and CMS. CMS administers the Medicare payment program for LTCHs, as well as the reimbursement programs for acute care hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and comprehensive rehabilitation hospitals. MedPAC's role is to help formulate federal policy on Medicare regarding services provided to Medicare beneficiaries (patients) and the appropriate reimbursement rates to be paid to the health care providers. The 2006 MedPAC report found that LTCHs were making a good margin or profit, and recommended against an annual increase in the Medicare reimbursement rate for the upcoming fiscal year. In 2006, CMS adopted a reimbursement rate rule for LTCHs for 2007 that did not raise the base rate and made other changes that reflect the ongoing concerns of CMS regarding LTCHs. AHCA's concerns regarding long term care hospitals In deciding on whether to approve or deny new health care facilities, the Agency is responsible for the "coordinated planning of health care services in the state." AHCA looks to federal rules and reports to assist in making health care planning decisions for the state. MedPAC has reported, and CMS has noted that, nationwide, there has been a recent, rapid increase in the number of LTCHs. Nationwide there has also been a huge increase in Medicare spending for LTCH care from $398 million in 1993 to $3.3 billion in 2004. Because of what it perceives to be a lack of specific data from applicants with regard to the composition and acuity level of LTCH patient populations, AHCA is not convinced that there is a need for additional LTCHs in the state. AHCA believes there may be an overlap between the LTCH patient populations and the population of patients served in other healthcare settings, such as SNFs and CMR facilities. AHCA also believes some long-term patients can be appropriately served in the short-term acute care hospitals, rather than requiring LTCH care. In the absence of the applicants better identifying the acuity level of the LTCH patient population, AHCA has reached the conclusion that there may be other health care options available to those patients targeted by the LTCH applicants, and there are enough approved and operating LTCHs in each District of the state, including District 3. Applicable statutory and rule criteria The parties stipulated that Subsections 408.035(1)-(9), Florida Statutes, apply in this proceeding. In addition, in the absence of agency policy regarding long-term care hospital beds and services, the criteria under Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e) 2.a.-d., apply and include consideration of the following topics, except where they are not inconsistent with the applicable statutory or rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Population, demographics, and dynamics and medical treatment trends and market conditions Promise plans to develop its LTCH in Lake County and to target and serve Leesburg Regional and its sister hospital, The Village's Regional Hospital, and secondarily to serve the Citrus and Hernando Counties, located to the west of Sumter County and in the most southern portion of District 3. Promise plans to offer a full array of LTCH services. The Leesburg Regional Medical Center, Inc. health care facilities Leesburg Regional (owned by Leesburg Regional Medical Center, Inc. (LRMC)) is a 309-bed (including a 32 intensive care unit (ICU)) acute care hospital located in the City of Leesburg, Lake County, Florida (east of Sumter County). It serves primarily Lake and Sumter Counties. Leesburg Regional provides a variety of primary and tertiary care services, including obstetrics and comprehensive rehabilitation. It is the only provider of neurosurgery and open heart services in the area. LRMC also owns a 120-bed skilled nursing facility located one mile from Leesburg Regional providing oncology services. Leesburg Regional is the safety net provider for the community it serves. There is evidence that patients stay longer at Leesburg Regional, i.e., exceeding an ALOS of five days, which affects not only patient care, but causes the facility to incur additional costs. Leesburg Regional's emergency room relies on the availability of beds to place patients. The inability to move patients from its cardiac intensive care and critical care units to more appropriate settings like an LTCH affects the care patients receive. Sixteen of the 32 intensive care beds are located on the third floor of Leesburg Regional and eight of these beds are used exclusively for open heart patients and seven of these eight beds must be available on an almost constant basis because of the large open heart surgery volume. Adding more ICU beds is not likely to resolve the problems experienced at Leesburg Regional. Fourteen ICU beds, including a four-bed dialysis unit, are located on the second floor and will be expanded to 16 beds in March 2007 with the relocation of the dialysis unit. Patients on the second floor face conditions similar to those patients on the third floor ICU. Leesburg Regional performed approximately 865 open heart surgery cases in 2005 and expects to perform 1,000 to 1,250 open heart surgery cases annually during the next five years. Leesburg Regional ranks the third largest, by volume, open heart surgery provider in the state. At the time of hearing, Leesburg Regional ICU was operating at 100 percent occupancy and was expected to continue at that level until April 2007. Leesburg Regional is designated as a "primary stroke center" by the federal government, serving as the first responder for stroke patients in the LRMC service area. Leesburg Regional is also designated as a Medicare disproportionate share hospital, indicative of a large population of Medicare patients. The average age of a patient treated at Leesburg Regional's cardiac unit is between 75 and 85 years. These patients often have co-morbidities, i.e., multiple health problems, such as congestive heart failure, diabetes, obesity, and respiratory issues. Over the past several years, over 16 percent of the patients served by LRMC's hospitals were Medicaid or low income patients. The patient transport process from Leesburg Regional to an existing LTCH is lengthy and potentially labor intensive. It requires at least 24 hours advance notice to the only emergency medical services (EMS) provider. The planned transport is subject to change due to the number of EMS vehicles available and emergencies. Also, the transferring hospital may need to provide, for example, a respiratory therapist to accompany the patient to an LTCH. Patients referred by Leesburg Regional to LTCHs are usually unable to be weaned from ventilators, often require complex wound care, wound vacs, extensive intravenous (IV) therapy, and extensive therapy care. The Village's Regional Hospital (Villages Regional) also owned by LRMC, is a 62-bed acute care facility, including 12 ICU beds, located within the development known as The Villages. The Villages is located in Lake, Sumter, and Marion Counties (north of Leesburg). By 2008, Villages Regional will expand to a 198-bed hospital. The Villages is a large development which currently comprises approximately 40,000 people and is projected to increase to approximately 100,000 when it is fully built out. The Village's limits residents to persons who are at least 55 years old. By comparison, Weston, Florida, in Broward County, is fully built out at 40,000 residents. District 3 District 3, comprised of 13 counties, is the largest geographical AHCA service district in the state with approximately 11,000 square miles. The main population centers in District 3 are Gainesville, Ocala, and Leesburg. Lake and Sumter Counties are projected to be the fastest growing counties by population in District 3. Lake County is the fastest growing county in terms of resident growth about 38,200 new residents are projected between 2005 and 2010 or about one out of every four new residents in District is projected to reside in Lake County. Promise expects a significant portion of LTCH referrals from Lake and Sumter Counties. Between 2005 and 2010, the 65 and older population is predicted to grow by 14.2 percent statewide, but 21 percent in Lake County and 22 percent in Sumter County. The same age group is projected to grow at 16.8 percent on a district-wide basis. T 359-360; PE 2 at 30. The total population is growing at a high rate and the elderly rate is growing at a higher rate. Due to the location of the Ocala National Forest, the projected growth in District 3 is projected to occur along the southeastern portion of District, i.e., the general corridor of Interstate 4, the Florida Turnpike, and US Highways 441. Other than the primary roads of US Highway 441 and 27, the roads are open with few street lights. Except for Alachua County (mainly because of the University of Florida), there is no mass transportation system available to the residents of District 3. The aging of the population limits somewhat the times of day that family members can travel. The road configuration, travel times, lack of public transportation and the age of the patients and families in the Leesburg service area make access to LTCHs in Gainesville and Ocala difficult. Quantifying the need for additional LTCH beds in District 3 Section 408.035(1), Florida Statutes The Agency has not adopted a need methodology for LTCH services. There is no published fixed need pool for LTCHs. Need is determined on a district-wide basis, here District 3. In order to determine whether there is a need for its project, Promise examined the population estimates and the number of acute care beds for District 3, discharge data from area acute care hospitals, and the lengths of stay of the patients treated at those hospitals. (Since the application was filed, the number of long term stay days of care in acute care hospitals in District 3 increased from 63,429 in 2004 to 68,602 in 2005.) Promise performed its analysis on a district-wide basis and also offered an analysis based on its targeted primary service area Lake and Sumter Counties and secondary area, Citrus and Hernando Counties. Promise used the Geometric Mean Length of Stay + 15 (GMLOS + 15) analysis of long stay patients in acute care short stay hospitals in District 3 to demonstrate need for additional LTCH beds in District 3. The Agency has accepted the GMLOS + 15 methodology to show need for an additional LTCH. See generally Select Specialty Hospital - Escambia, Inc. vs. Agency for Health Care Administration, DOAH Case No. 05-0319CON, 2005 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 1095 (DOAH June 17, 2005; AHCA July 11, 2005); Select Specialty Hospital - Marion, Inc. vs. Agency for Health Care Administration, DOAH Case No. 03-2483CON, 2004 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 1658 (DOAH July 14, 2004; AHCA Sept. 15, 2004). Promise identified the number of long-stay patients discharged from the District 3 hospitals as a starting point to quantify the number of patients who have used LTCH services in the past. Long-stay discharges were defined using the following criteria: age of patient was 18 years or older; the discharge DRG was consistent with discharge DRGs from a Florida LTCH; and the ALOS in the acute care hospital was at the GMLOS for the specific DRG plus 15 days or more. Applying these criteria reduced the number of DRGs used and the potential patient pool. In 2004, there were 1,667 acute care hospital discharges from District 3 hospitals that met the above criteria. These 1,667 discharges averaged a length of stay of 38 days, significantly higher than the overall ALOS (approximately five days) for patients discharged from short- term acute care hospitals. Applying the weighted average annual growth rate of the population 18 years or older to District 3 2004 LTCH discharges resulted in a total of 1,978 potential acute care discharges in the five-year planning horizon (2005-2010) and specifically for 2010. Promise then reduced the 1,978 discharges by 25 percent to 1,484, anticipating the effect of CMS policies which, according to Mr. Balsano, would restrict admissions to LTCHs and encourage LTCHs to care for the more complex patients or would provide alternatives to patients who would otherwise be admitted to an LTCH. (A high percentage of LTCH patients are Medicare recipients. Approximately 80 to 85 percent of admissions to Promise Healthcare LTCHs are Medicare patients. Promise projects 87.9 percent of its patient days will be Medicare and Medicare HMO.) Promise held the ALOS of 34.5 days constant and then multiplied the ALOS times the projected number of admissions in 2010 resulting in 51,198 LTCH patient days (1,484 x 34.5). Promise assumed that the proposed facility would experience an ALOS of 34.5 days reflecting 2004 LTCH experience in Florida, and would operate at 80 percent occupancy. These assumptions yielded a need for 175 LTCH beds by 2010. However, the net bed need by 2010 is 100 after deducting 75 LTCH beds which are approved and operational in District 3. If the number of potential LTCH patients is reduced by 50 percent rather than 25 percent and the occupancy standard is increased to 85 percent, the methodology yields a need for approximately 47 beds (122 minus 75 beds). On Schedules 7B and 8A for the second year of operation, Promise projected it would provide 11,216 patient days with an average occupancy of 76.8 percent in order to achieve a net profit of $1,048,236 in year two of operation. In order to break even in year two, Promise used a sensitivity analysis and updated data and projected it would need approximately 9,551 patient days at an ALOS of 34.5 or approximately 17 to 19 percent of the total projected patient days for District 3 (56,090). T 475, 489, 820. Promise assumed a loss of approximately 15 percent of patient days from the 11,216 patient days projected. T 450-451. Stated otherwise, Promise needs approximately 276 discharges by year two (2010) to break even. T 472-475, 825. Notwithstanding the above, the Agency is concerned with the type of patients (acuity levels) who are appropriate for LTCH services, suggesting in part that admitted LTCH patients are not always appropriate for that level of care and that LTCH applicants have traditionally overstated the need for additional LTCH beds. The basis of this concern lies in part on information obtained by the Agency from CMS which, as interpreted by the Agency, indicates that 37 percent of patients historically admitted to LTCHs are short-term outliers, and that 29 percent of patients admitted were totally inappropriate for such admissions. In 2002, CMS adopted a rule intended to assure that if an LTCH did not expend funds to treat a patient, CMS would receive the benefit of the lower cost and/or more efficient care. For reimbursement purposes, the rule defined short-term as the admission of any patient who stayed in an LTCH no loner than 5/6ths, or 83 percent, of the ALOS at a particular LTCH. The rule generates a number of short-term outliers equal to approximately 37 percent of all admissions. Mr. Balsano considered this rule in reducing the potential number of admissions at the District 3 LTCHs in the future by 25 percent as well as reducing the projected Medicare reimbursement rates the proposed facility would receive. The Agency also relied on a 2004 study of LTCH admissions which found that 29 percent of the patients were inappropriate for hospital care and that CMS supported the study's findings. However, within the same exhibit, CMS recognized that 17.4 percent of the admissions reviewed in the survey involved payment errors and only 5.9 percent involved admission denials. Payment errors involve billing and coding errors not whether an admission was appropriate. The percentage of admission or payment denial claims for acute care hospitals during 2004 was 4.6 percent, similar to the LTCH percentage. In order to ensure patients are appropriate for LTCH care, Promise has implemented a number of programs including an increased level of patient admission scrutiny. Promise uses a standardized model for its admission criteria known as InterQual. InterQual is a set of measurable, clinical indicators that reflect a patient's need for hospitalization. Rather than being based on diagnosis, InterQual criteria consider the level of illness of the patient and the level of services required. InterQual measures the acuity levels of LTCH patients. Using InterQual criteria provides some assurance that patients will be suitable for LTCH care, i.e., actually need LTCH care because of the severity of the patient's illness. InterQual criteria include discharge screens, which require an LTCH to continuously determine whether a patient can be more appropriately cared for in an alternative setting. Approximately 35 to 60 percent of patient referrals are admitted at Promise Healthcare LTCHs. Promise has used InterQual criteria since the summer of 2004, and at the time of hearing, used the criteria in all of its facilities. (However, Promise did not specifically offer proof of actual results of using InterQual in its LTCHs. T 718.) Thirty-nine of 52 Quality Improvement Organizations (QIO) have adopted InterQual as their criteria to review the appropriateness of LTCH admissions. Notwithstanding Promise's use of InterQual criteria, the Agency is still concerned regarding inappropriate admissions at Promise's proposed facility as well as existing LTCHs. But see AHCA 13. During a 2004 site visit to SemperCare Hospital in Orlando (Select Specialty Hospital - Orlando), AHCA obtained information which identified patients' severity of illness. The Agency viewed this report favorably and suggested that this information is the type of evidence which should be included in a LTCH CON application to establish the segment of patients appropriate for admission to an LTCH. See AHCA 17. During rebuttal, Promise called Dr. Grigonis as a witness. Dr. Grigonis' firm was retained by SemperCare to generate the data and analysis presented to the Agency in AHCA Exhibit 17. Dr. Grigonis was retained by Promise to analyze data similar to AHCA Exhibit 17. T 742-743. According to Dr. Grigonis, the severity of illness of a patient can be determined by using a product developed by 3M Corporation and is part of a system known as APR-DRG (all patient refined (APR)) patient classification system. The DRG is the standard classification system developed by Medicare and others to classify patients into broad diagnostic groups. The APR is a further refinement of the DRG system and is used by CMS and is in use in many acute care hospitals in the country. A patient's severity of illness is broken down into four categories: minor, moderate, major, and extreme and ranked from a low of one to a high of four along these categories. Patients with the highest severity (major and extreme/ three and four) have the highest probability of being admitted into an LTCH. Dr. Grigonis was asked to determine the severity of a potential pool of LTCH patients considering only Medicare patients. First, he used a database of Medicare patients known as MedPAR data and for the period October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2005. Second, filters were applied to the data based upon both clinical and length of stay information. Only patients who stayed the GMLOS plus 15 days for similar patients in that DRG category were considered. This filter was provided by Mr. Balsano. Patients were also eliminated who based on their DRG were not appropriate for an LTCH. Patients who expired were also eliminated. When these stringent filters were applied to the MedPAR data from 2004-2005, the potential patient population was reduced to less than one half of one percent of all Medicare patients discharged from the four acute care hospitals studied, Leesburg Regional, Villages Regional, Florida Hospital Waterman, and Citrus Memorial Hospital,1 which are not LTCHs, serving Lake, Sumter, Citrus, and Hernando Counties within District 3. T 751-753, 794. This exercise was followed to determine the reasonable number of candidates who were appropriate for admission to an LTCH from this geographic area. Once the patients were separated using the filters, Dr. Grigonis applied the same algorithm obtained from the 3-M Corporation to determine the APR/DRG and severity of illness, i.e., determine the proportion of patients falling within each severity level. This is the same methodology he used for the SemperCare study. The data generated by Dr. Grigonis indicated that during October 2004 to September 2005, the four acute care hospitals generated 192 Medicare only filtered patients who would be appropriate for admission to an LTCH (but did not receive LTCH care) and 87.5 percent of the 192 patients were in the major and extreme severity of illness categories - levels three and four. (Patient origin data was not included as part of the data or analysis.) Of the 192 patients, Leesburg Regional, Villages Regional, Citrus Memorial, and Florida Hospital Waterman accounted for 69, 13, 60, and 50 patients, respectively. Leesburg Regional and Villages Regional had a very high proportion of high severity cases. Dr. Grigonis compared the SemperCare study (AHCA 17) with his recent four-hospital study (Promise R 3) and concluded that the population of patients selected for the four-hospital study had an overall higher degree of severity than patients who were typically treated at the SemperCare LTCH. T 760. Dr. Grigonis ultimately concluded that the results from the four-hospital study indicate a group of patients that are suitable for LTCH admissions. T 765. Dr. Grigonis also opined that the range of the total number of patients appearing on Promise Exhibit 29 is consistent with his findings. T 767-777.2 He also stated that "over time there are likely to be higher severity patients in certain areas, and that would also be consistent with the fact that the data we analyzed from the pure Medicare file was a year older." T 768. During its surrebuttal case, in response to Promise Rebuttal Exhibit 3, the Agency reviewed Florida statewide LTCH actual discharge data for calendar year 2005. This exhibit provided the number of discharges/cases and percentages by DRG code of patients who were discharged from an LTCH. AHCA SR 1. The data was not limited to Medicare patients. T 830-849. The Agency compared this data set with Promise Rebuttal Exhibit 3 and concluded that many of the patients treated at the four acute care facilities would not necessarily be candidates for LTCH care. For example, for LTCH statewide discharges, approximately 50 percent of the discharges were from DRGs 475 (respiratory system diagnosis with ventilator support/22.40 percent); 87 (pulmonary edema and respiratory failure/8.55 percent); 271 (skin ulcers/5.97 percent); 416 (septicemia age greater than 17/4.44 percent); 88 (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/4.26 percent); and 79 (respiratory infections and inflammation greater than age 17 with CC/3.91 percent). AHCA SR 1. For these same DRGs, for the patients discharged from the four acute care facilities, the percentages were: 1.6 percent/475; 1.04 percent/87; 0 percent/271; 6.2 percent/416; 2 percent/88; and 5.2 percent/79. Only three patients were classified within DRG 475. The percentages of patients classified within DRGs 416, 88, and 79 are closer in comparison than the others. The Agency reiterated that the purpose of this surrebuttal exhibit was to show the DRGs of patients actually admitted to an LTCH. T 849. The data used by Dr. Grigonis is different from the data used by the Agency, in part, because the patient pools are different and the point of discharge is different. T 847. The Agency also pointed out that, although there has been a steady increase in the state's population for the past ten years, and an increase in the number of LTCHs starting in 2003, there has been a decline in the utilization of LTCHs. See, e.g., AHCA 13 and 14. (The expansion of LTCHs statewide has been significant. As of 2003, there were 740 licensed LTCH beds in 10 facilities statewide. The number of beds rose to 876 by 2005 in 14 facilities and, as of July 2006, there were 475 additional LTCH beds approved statewide in nine facilities. Id.) Past occupancy numbers assist somewhat in predicating future need for future health care services in general. However, the needs of each service district should be analyzed, not lumped into one category of need because of the wide variation in bed occupancy in the various districts and because the numbers do not necessarily indicate whether access or bed availability is a problem. Despite the Agency's concerns, Promise's methodology is more conservative than those applied in other LTCH CON applications in part because Promise considered the potential impact of future CMS actions which would tend to remove the lower acuity patients from being admitted or considered appropriate for admission to LTCHs. Also, the study performed by Dr. Grigonis, see also endnote 2, is persuasive that there is a pool of potential patients who need LTCH services within Promise's service area. Availability, extent of utilization, accessibility, and quality of care of like services in District 3 - Section 408.035(2), Florida Statutes LTCHs Kindred - Hospital East (Kindred Marion) is the only operational LTCH in District 3 and is located in Ocala, Marion County, Florida, north of Lake and Sumter Counties. The drive time from Leesburg Regional to the Kindred Marion LTCH is approximately one hour to one hour and 15 minutes. (It takes approximately 30 minutes to drive from Leesburg Regional to Villages Regional and thus approximately 30 minutes north to Kindred Marion from Villages Regional.) Kindred Marion is a "hospital within a hospital" (HIH) because it is physically located in Munroe Regional Medical Center (Munroe Regional), an acute care hospital. Kindred Marion has 30 beds in 15 semi-private rooms and one bed in an isolation room. Kindred Marion's short-term hospital Medicare provider number became effective November 30, 2005, and its long-term hospital Medicare provider number became effective June 1, 2006. Notwithstanding its status as an HIH, it is separately licensed.3 From October 2005 through November 2006, Kindred Marion reported 147 admissions to its LTCH, of which 42, 21, and 20 came from Munroe Regional, Shands Hospital, and Ocala Regional, respectively, and no referrals from Village's Regional and two admissions from Leesburg Regional. During the same time period, Kindred Marion received 6.8 and 2.7 percent of its patients from Lake and Sumter Counties, respectively, or about two patients a day from these two counties.4 Since it opened, Kindred Marion's average daily census (ADC) has experienced an upward trend. By October 2006, Kindred Marion's ADC reached as high as 20 to 22 patients, with an occupancy rate of approximately 71 percent. Utilization and inefficiencies may result when a facility is composed solely of semi-private rooms. These include assuring that patients of different sexes are not housed in the same room; that contagious diseases or infections are appropriately considered; the location of additional equipment, such as monitoring devices, for patients with co-morbidities; and that the preferences of patient's families are taken into consideration. In light of some these limitations, unlike facilities with private bed configurations, facilities with semi-private bed configurations have more limited capacity. Kindred Marion's realistic occupancy threshold is approximately 70 to 75 percent. (However, Kindred Marion can add LTCH beds without CON review by notifying the Agency of the addition. Kindred Marion can also become a freestanding LTCH without CON review. It is not certain whether Kindred Marion intends to expand or whether it has the capacity to expand or whether it intends to become a freestanding LTCH.) There is some evidence that Leesburg Regional's personnel have not been successful in placing patients at Kindred Marion, although the attempts were not quantified with any precision. See, e.g., T 224-225, 241-242. One additional LTCH (Select Alachua) has been approved and is under construction by Select in Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida, close to the Shands Hospital System (Shands). It will be a freestanding LTCH with 44 beds and is expected to open in 2008. Select Alachua was approved on the basis that the majority of its patients would be generated by Shands and would serve patients in Alachua County and surrounding counties. AHCA expects Shands will refer the large majority of its patients requiring LTCH services to Select Alachua. See Finding of Fact 119 regarding the ability to expand. The drive time to Select Alachua from Leesburg Regional is approximately one hour and a half to two hours. Kindred Marion and Shands Alachua are closer to Leesburg Regional and the residents of Lake and Sumter Counties than the Kindred Tampa LTCHs. However, given the relationship between Shands and Select Alachua, the evidence is not persuasive that Select Alachua will be a viable alternative for the residents of Lake and Sumter Counties and potential patients from, for example, from Leesburg Regional and Villages Regional, needing LTCH services. CMRs, SNFs, SNUs, and Home Health Agencies The CMR unit in the Leesburg Regional service area has not been available for ventilator patients. Also, CMR units are rarely appropriate for the LTCH patient, in part, because LTCH patients are not able to tolerate the minimum three hours of daily therapy associated with CMR care. The services offered at SNFs and SNUs and by home health agencies in District 3 are not appropriate substitutes for the services offered at an LTCH and needed by typical LTCH patients. LTCH services outside District 3 For calendar year 2004 and prior to the operation of an LTCH in District 3, over half (143 out of 259) of the District 3 resident/patients receiving LTCH services were discharged from the Kindred - North Florida LTCH in Green Cove Springs, Florida. An additional 25 percent of the District 3 resident/patients were discharged from Kindred - Central Tampa and Kindred - Tampa. Kindred Hospital - Bay Area - Tampa (Kindred Tampa), in District 6 to the west of District 3, is an existing LTCH with 73 licensed LTCH beds. Patients at Leesburg Regional requiring LTCH services are transported two hours away to the Kindred Tampa facility. Kindred Tampa terminated its family bus shuttle service in the Leesburg Regional service area so family members (of patients admitted to Kindred Tampa) must provide or find transportation and travel two hours each way to visit patients at Kindred Tampa. Patients are transported by EMS. Kindred also operates another LTCH in District 6 known as Kindred Hospital - Central Tampa with 102 licensed LTCH beds. For calendar years 2002 through 2005, the occupancy levels for Kindred Tampa were 67.50, 65.93, 62.64, and 59.49, respectively. For the same time period, the occupancy levels for the Kindred Hospital - Central Tampa LTCH were 79.42, 70.33, 69.52, and 63.05, respectively. (Both Kindred LTCHs have been operational at least since 1995.) The two Kindred LTCHs in the Tampa area are potential alternatives for the residents in Lake and Sumter Counties, but the driving time to and from these facilities is problematic both for the patients and caregivers and costs are incurred by the transferring facility. For example, a respiratory therapist from Leesburg Regional will often accompany the patients, which keeps the therapists out of the hospital for six to seven hours. T 218. There is one LTCH (opened in 2003) in Orlando known as Select Specialty Hospital - Orlando (formerly SemperCare - Orlando), with 35 LTCH beds and another LTCH under construction in southern Orange County within a few miles of the current LTCH known as Select Specialty Hospital - Orange with 40 approved, but not operational LTCH beds. The approximate drive time from Leesburg Regional to the Orlando LTCH is approximately one hour and 20 minutes and one hour and 50 minutes to the LTCH (Orange County) under construction. For calendar year 2004 and 2005, the occupancy levels at the Select Specialty - Orlando LTCH were 71.28 and 73.37 percent, respectively, compared to the statewide average of 67.14 and 64.70 percent, respectively. Select Specialty - Orlando is associated with the Florida Hospital5 System, whereas the approved Select Specialty Hospital - Orange facility is associated with the Orlando Regional Health System. Both LTCHs were approved in part based on patients residing in the Orlando/Orange County area within District 7 needing LTCH services and on the specific needs of these large hospital systems and the patients they serve.6 T 627, 690, 700-705, 709, 729-731. (Select Specialty - Orlando is an LTCH within the multiple buildings of Florida Hospital in Orlando. T 627). Given the special relationships forged by these Orlando/Orange County LTCHs with existing health care systems, the evidence is not persuasive that they are viable alternatives for the residents of Lake and Sumter Counties or, for that matter, other residents in District 3, except perhaps LTCH eligible patients from Florida Hospital Waterman. Also, Leesburg Regional has tried to place patients with the Select Orlando but bed availability has been a problem. Travel is also problematic. As of July 2006, University Community Hospital, Inc. has been approved to operate a 50-bed LTCH in Pasco or Pinellas County, Florida. T 714. The record is scanty on any details regarding this facility and its proposed service area. The ability of Promise to provide quality of care - Section 408.035(3), Florida Statutes Promise is a new development stage corporation without a track record in Florida. However, Promise demonstrated that it can provide quality of care should its project be approved and that its parent company has a history of providing quality of care. About one-half of Promise Healthcare's facilities are accredited by the Joint Commission of Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO). Promise Healthcare expects the remaining facilities will be similarly accredited within the next 18 months. LTCHs must go through a six-month demonstration period (unless extended) when they are treated like an acute care hospital. During this period, they must demonstrate that they are caring for medically complex patients who have an ALOS of more than 25 days. The hospital is reimbursed at the acute care hospital rate. In addition to JCAHO accreditation and the use of InterQual admission measures indicated above, Promise Healthcare utilizes a number of other outcome measurement systems, including JCAHO's ORYX performance measurement system, medication error rate determinations and best practices standards. ORYX is a national clinical outcome database operated by Healthcare Data, Inc., under a contract with JCAHO, which enables providers like Promise to evaluate and compare themselves to others in the industry by reporting indicators, such as infection control, ventilator dependency and weaning, and wound healing. In order to maintain JCAHO accreditation, JCAHO requires LTCH facilities to report nine indicators on a quarterly basis. T 41-48. The availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds for capital, and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation-- Section 408.035(4), Florida Statutes The parties agree that Promise has or will be able to recruit or otherwise obtain sufficient resources, including health and management personnel, to accomplish the project. The parties have differing views on the availability of funds for capital and operating expenditures discussed herein. The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district -- Section 408.035(5), Florida Statutes Based primarily on the experiences of personnel at Leesburg Regional, the need assessment performed by Mr. Balsano, and the study performed by Dr. Grigonis, see also endnote 2, approval of the project is likely to enhance access to LTCH services for the residents of District 3. The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal -- Section 408.035(6), Florida Statutes Promise is required to prove its project will be financially feasible in the short-term by establishing its ability to fund the project, and in the long-term by establishing a positive net revenue or profit at the end of the second full year of its projected operation. In other words, can Promise obtain financing to fund the project and is the project likely to generate a profit at the end of its second year of operation? AHCA argues that Promise is a development stage company with assets of $60,000 and no results from operations. In addition, AHCA argues that Promise did not provide audited financial statements for its parent company, Promise Healthcare, and that, as a result, AHCA cannot perform a review of Promise's short and long-term position. In essence, AHCA questions Promise's ability to obtain financing necessary to fund this project and associated working capital. Promise noted that it intends to fund the project through debt financing and provided a letter of interest. AHCA does not consider a letter of interest a firm commitment to lend. Promise is a start-up company. Promise included an audited financial statement of itself in its CON application, but not for its parent company. There is nothing unusual about establishing a separate start-up company. At the time of the hearing, Promise Healthcare, the parent company, generated net patient revenues in excess of $200 million. Promise Healthcare is viable and profitable, as indicated in its financial documents and financial history. With the exception of its first year of operation, Promise Healthcare has been profitable, and, in 2005, Promise Healthcare generated positive retained earnings in excess of $10 million. In 2006, Promise Healthcare's profits "are just about the same for 2005." Mr. Leder stated that there were some changes in reimbursement that lowered some of the revenue and also one company was in a start-up mode with a six month loss, which was absorbed, but if considered a start-up, net income for the year would have been approximately $5 million. T 147. Mr. Leder explained that audits are being done now which "hopefully will be completed within the next six or eight weeks." He further explained that when Promise Healthcare purchased other companies, there was a significant amount of financial information unavailable to list on statements which were auditable. Nevertheless, he opined that their financial statements "are fairly accurate" and the balance sheet and income statement have "always been fair and reasonable." T 148. Through the years, Promise Healthcare has been successful in securing financing as needed. Promise Healthcare's "sister" company, Sun Capital, obtained in excess of $250 million in loans through the efforts of Founding Partners Capital Management Company (Founding) and its principal, Mr. Gunlicks. Founding acts as the general partner in managing investment funds. Founding is registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the federal Commodities Futures Trading Commission, and the Florida Division of Securities. Promise Healthcare has obtained approximately $15 million in loans from Founding for two facilities in Nederland (by mortgage) and Bossier City (by construction loan). T 148-149. It is not uncommon for health care companies to rely on letters of intent to finance their facilities at this stage of the CON process. Mr. Gunlicks and his associates have conducted extensive due diligence into Promise Healthcare's plans to expand in Florida. If approved, Mr. Gunlicks and the entities that he controls stand ready, willing, and able to provide the necessary financing for the Promise project. According to AHCA's financial expert, Mr. Fitch, there has not been a CON project which, if approved, was not developed due to lack of financing. If the Agency approves the application, it is reasonable to expect that the project will be financed appropriately. Promise produced credible evidence in this regard. Promise, by and through the testimony of witnesses employed at Leesburg Regional, proved that it had strong support from LRMC. Promise's projected occupancy rates are based on the methodology proposed by Mr. Balsano, including the adjustments contained in the projected number of patients who would likely be admitted to District 3 LTCHs. The projected occupancy rates for years one and two, although presenting a challenge for Promise in today's LTCH/health care climate, are reasonable. The projected Medicare revenues as well as the overall net revenues per patient day included in the application are reasonable. The proposed costs per patient day are reasonable. Overall, the projections that Promise's project will at least break even and potentially generate a profit in excess of $1.2 million at the end of the second year of operations, although challenging, is reasonable. The Agency raised legitimate concerns regarding the financial ability of Promise and its parent. The lack of audited financial statements for the parent is troubling, but not dispositive. The financial ability of Promise and its parent to fund and operate this project presents a credibility issue in this de novo hearing. Based on the totality of the evidence presented, Promise proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the project is likely to be financially feasible in the short-term and long-term. The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness -- Section 408.035(7), Florida Statutes Approval of Promise's application would provide competition in the District 3 LTCH market and reduce expensive and time consuming patient transfers. In addition, it is likely to provide efficiencies in various departments of hospitals, such as those operated by LRMC. Access to the proposed Promise project is likely to decompress LRMC's emergency departments and intensive care units, reduce hospital stays, and provide better care for patients. The costs and methods of the proposed construction, including the costs and methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction -- Section 408.035(8), Florida Statutes The parties agree that the estimated construction costs of the Promise project are reasonable and that the architectural plans submitted by Promise comply with all statutory and rule requirements. The applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent -- Section 408.035(9), Florida Statutes If awarded a CON, Promise agreed to provide a combined two percent of the facility's total annual patient days to Medicaid and charity patients. At hearing, Promise reiterated its commitment contained in the application. In some states in which Promise operates, the Medicaid program does not provide any benefits for LTCH patients. In its Shreveport facility, the percentage of Medicaid patients averages between five and ten percent. It is even higher in Promise's Phoenix facility. Promise provides care to patients who do not have any reimbursement available-allowing its facilities to do so on a case-by-case basis. Promise's commitment to Medicaid and charity care is accounted for in the application's projections. Promise's commitment compares favorably with the level of similar care provided by existing LTCH facilities in Florida. The applicant's designation as a Gold Seal Program nursing facility pursuant to s.400.235, when the applicant is requesting additional nursing home beds at that facility -- Section 409.035(10), Florida Statutes The parties agree this criterion does not apply.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue a final order granting Promise Healthcare of Florida III, Inc.'s CON Application No. 9870. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 2007.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) should grant the application of Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital, Inc. (WUESTHOFF), for a Certificate of Need (CON) (CON 8597) to establish a new 50-bed general acute care hospital in South Brevard County, District 7.
Findings Of Fact WUESTHOFF is a 303-bed, acute care hospital in Brevard County, Florida. In addition to its hospital, WUESTHOFF has three home health locations, eight or nine walk-in clinics, a hospice, a durable medical equipment business, an ambulatory surgery center, two freestanding diagnostic centers, and outpatient labs throughout Brevard County. HRMC is a JCAHO accredited, 528-bed, regional, not-for- profit community hospital based in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida. HRMC is comprised of two acute care campuses: a 468- bed tertiary hospital in Melbourne, and a 60-bed, general acute care hospital in Palm Bay. The Melbourne campus operates a 10-bed, Level II, neonatal, intensive care unit, and 428 general medical and pediatric beds. The Proposed Project WUESTHOFF chose to establish a satellite hospital complex in South Brevard County by applying separately for: (1) a certificate of need (CON) to decertify and de-license 100 general acute care hospital beds and undertake certain renovations and improvements at its existing Rockledge hospital facility; (2) a CON for a medical office building (MOB); (3) a non-reviewability letter for a $35 million diagnostic and treatment center (DTC), which would provide all of the ancillary services for the new satellite hospital; and (4) the CON to establish the 50-bed hospital (CON 8597) which is at issue in this case. In CON 8597, WUESTHOFF has asked AHCA to treat the $35 million DTC as the “sunk” costs of an existing facility, and to review the CON application at issue in this case incrementally— i.e., as consisting of only the inpatient tower and the additional ancillary activities that would take place at the complex, over and above those that would take place at the DTC without the inpatient tower. Viewing CON 8597 in this way, WUESTHOFF presented total project costs of only $13 million. In preparing the financial schedules for CON 8597, WUESTHOFF presented the revenues and expenses of the entire hospital operation (including the DTC), except for the additional activities (inpatient and ancillary) that would result from the addition of the inpatient tower, and the revenues and expenses of the entire hospital operation, including the additional activities (inpatient and ancillary) that would result from the addition of the inpatient tower. By presenting the financial schedules in this manner, WUESTHOFF never presented the revenues and expenses of the entirety of the new satellite hospital it is proposing to establish, and AHCA has not had the opportunity to review those revenues and expenses. WUESTHOFF planned to build the MOB, the DTC and the inpatient tower in one continual course of construction and to open the entire complex at the same time; the complex, when completed, was planned to function as a single, integrated hospital facility. AHCA granted the first three applications comprising WUESTHOFF’s project but denied CON 8597. In a subsequent batch, WUESTHOFF filed a letter of intent for a single CON application that the combined the DTC and inpatient tower projects at a total cost of approximately $50,000,000. Need In Relation To State And District Health Plans: Section 408.035(1)(a) Florida Statutes State Health Plan The first State Health Plan preference favors applicants who demonstrate that the subdistrict occupancy rate is at or exceeds 75 percent, or in the case of existing facilities, where the occupancy rate for the most recent 12 months is at or exceeds 85 percent. WUESTHOFF failed to meet this preference. For the applicable period, the subdistrict occupancy was approximately 53 percent; however, more recent data shows that occupancy is below 53 percent, which suggests a continuing decline in inpatient occupancy rates in the subdistrict. During the applicable period, the occupancy rate at WUESTHOFF’s Rockledge facility was only slightly more than 45 percent. The second State Health Plan preference favors an applicant with a history of providing a disproportionate share of the subdistrict’s acute care and Medicaid patient days, and further meets the Medicaid disproportionate share hospital criteria. WUESTHOFF failed to meet this preference, as it is not a disproportionate share provider. The third State Health Plan preference favors an applicant that provides or proposes to provide disproportionate share of Medicaid and charity care patient days in relation to other hospitals within the district or subdistrict. WUESTHOFF’s existing facility is not a disproportionate share hospital. (Although WUESTHOFF’s CON application proposes to condition award of the CON setting aside 15 percent of its discharges for Medicaid, charity, and indigent patients, its application does not provide percentages for each category.) The fourth State Health Plan preference considers the current and projected indigent inpatient case load, the proposed facility size, and the case and service mix, WUESTHOFF’s application partially complies with the preference in that it proposes to provide some indigent care. The fifth State Health Plan preference favors proposals that would not negatively affect the financial viability of an existing, disproportionate share hospital. This preference is not applicable in this case. The sixth State Health Plan preference favors applicants with a record of accepting indigent patients for emergency care. WUESTHOFF meets this preference. The seventh State Health Plan preference favors applicants for any type of hospital project if the facility is verified as a trauma center. WUESTHOFF does not meet this preference. WUESTHOFF claims that it operate the emergency room at the proposed facility with “the same level of services as WUESTHOFF’s existing emergency room.” WUESTHOFF does not currently operate a Level II trauma center at its Rockledge campus. The eighth State Health Plan preference favors applicants who can document that they provide a full range of emergency services. WUESTHOFF’s Rockledge facility offers a range of emergency services, but the emergency department at the proposed facility will necessarily offer a limited range of services, as the proposed facility will not be a tertiary care hospital, and emergency patients in need of those services will have to be transferred. The ninth State Health Plan preference favors applicants who can document that it has not been fined by HRS for any violation of the emergency services statutes. WUESTHOFF meets this preference. Local Health Plan Preferences The District 7 Local Health Plan sets forth five preferences to be used in evaluating CON applications for the transfer/relocation/delicensure of acute care beds. The health plan provides that “[p]reference shall be given to applications for transfer of existing acute care beds, delicensure/conversion of existing acute care beds and/or relocation of an entire facility if the applicant can provide substantial documentation of: The need for acute care beds or specialty beds in the service area proposed to receive the beds. Need should address specific populations, access consideration, etc. The impact of the proposed project on the parent facility including projected occupancy declines, curtailing of service effect on operating cost, use of vacated space at the main campus and charge changes. The proposed service improving access by at least 25 minutes to at least 10 percent of the population or a minimum of at least 35,000 people. This should be substantiated by analyses of patient origin to existing providers, physician referral practices and location of physician offices. Commitment to provision of care to both no-pay and low-pay medically indigent patients and Medicaid patients at a minimum of no more than 2 percent below the most recent HCB publication for the District of the charity/uncompensated care percentage of net revenues. Agreement to participate in any indigent care programs which exist in the county or counties proposed to be served. Participation should be at a rate equal to or greater than the average for the general hospitals also serving that area. As to the first preference, WUESTHOFF failed to demonstrate a need for the proposed 50-bed general acute care hospital. Even with the delicensure of 100 acute care beds as a result of WUESTHOFF’s companion application, there still is an oversupply of 215 acute care beds in the county. The evidence presented at the final hearing failed to demonstrate any geographic or other barriers to accessing acute care services that would warrant the expenditure proposed by WUESTHOFF to construct the proposed project. Indeed, WUESTHOFF’s own evidence was clear that every resident of Brevard County has access to a general acute care hospital within a maximum drive time of 30-40 minutes and, in almost all instances, to two different acute care facilities within a 30-40 minute drive time. WUESTHOFF contends that its proposed 50-bed general acute care hospital is needed for four reasons: (1) to provide a high quality alternative inpatient health care provider in south Brevard County; (2) to introduce competition into the south Brevard area; (3) to enhance access to care to Medicaid, charity, and indigent population, as well as to enhance access for the managed care segment of the population; and (4) to enable WUESTHOFF to remain competitive in the marketplace. The evidence is clear that HRMC provides high quality inpatient health care in south Brevard County. See Findings 30- 44, infra. In addition, WUESTHOFF already serves some patients, residing in south Brevard County, and so does Sebastian River Medical Center, located in the adjacent county to the south. The evidence also is clear that there already is competition for inpatient hospital services in south Brevard County. HRMC serves a much greater percentage of those patients primarily due to its location and the high quality and low costs of HRMC’s services. In view of the excess capacity of hospital beds in the county, it does not make sense to add a satellite WUESTHOFF hospital in south Brevard County that would duplicate the services of the existing providers. WUESTHOFF also attempted to show that its proposed acute care hospital was needed in order to provide services for managed care participants. However, WUESTHOFF failed to offer any competent evidence to show that participants in managed care programs are a traditionally underserved population group and did not prove that WUESTHOFF’s ability to participate in managed care networks is a valid basis for determining the need of additional acute care services in south Brevard County. To the contrary, the evidence tended to show that the expansion of managed care programs would result in a decrease in the utilization of inpatient acute care services. Furthermore, there is no barrier to WUESTHOFF’s participating in managed care programs with one or more facilities in the southern portion of Brevard County, and in fact WUESTHOFF has aligned itself with Sebastian River Medical Center in a number of managed care contracts serving residents of southern Brevard County. While WUESTHOFF is offering a larger discount to managed care payers, its charges are higher, resulting in net revenue per managed care case that is still higher than HRMC’s. The price the managed care providers pay to HRMC is actually 14 percent lower than what they pay to WUESTHOFF. Not only does HRMC provide a better “deal” to managed care payers, but HRMC’s managed care volume is also greater than WUESTHOFF’s, indicating HRMC’s willingness to negotiate and work with managed care companies. At the time WUESTHOFF submitted its CON application, the penetration of managed care in Brevard County was approximately 8.6 percent. However, more recent data from 1996 shows a significant increase in the penetration of managed care to 15 percent, without the allegedly needed new hospital. A primary thrust of WUESTHOFF’s case for the need for its proposed project was that patients in the southern portion of Brevard County cannot be admitted into HRMC’s Palm Bay facility because its physicians do not enjoy staff privileges at that facility. Each hospital establishes criterion for staff privileges. In order to be eligible for staff privileges, it is normally required that the physician reside or have his or her office within certain geographic boundaries surrounding the hospital. The primary reason for such requirement is to ensure that the physician is capable of responding to patient needs within a time certain and that the physician will be able to provide coverage for his or her patients admitted into a facility. Dr. Arnold, a physician with staff privileges at WUESTHOFF who operates an office in West Melbourne, conceded that if his physician group associated with a physician living within HRMC’s geographic boundaries who was able to meet response time criteria, the physician group could admit patients into HRMC. Dr. Arnold also conceded that his physician group is not eligible for staff privileges at other Brevard hospitals, based on geographic considerations. The Availability, Quality Of Care, Efficiency, Appropriateness, Accessibility, Extent Of Utilization, And Adequacy Of Like And Existing Health Care Services In The Service District: Section 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes. There is no need for another hospital in South Brevard County. The county already has more than enough hospitals. Even in light of a 27-29 percent increase in population, utilization of Brevard County hospitals has dropped 10 percent in the last five years. There has been a marked shift in the Brevard County area away from inpatient services toward outpatient services. That shift is still growing. HRMC is the only hospital in Brevard County which has been nationally recognized for quality care by the National Research Corporation. According to AHCA’s hospital report card, HRMC was shown to be a consistent, low-charge provider, operating within the expected range of outcomes. According to a study done by AHCA, HRMC performs as one of the top five hospitals in Florida for reducing overall C-section births and increasing vaginal births after Cesarean (“VBAC”). This is important because vaginal births are safer for both mother and baby and save approximately $3,000 per delivery when compared with Cesarean births. HRMC has the lowest Cesarean Section rate and the highest VBAC rate in Brevard County and is one of the five lowest charging hospitals in the State for these services. Wuesthoff, on the other hand, has some of the highest costs in the county for these services. HRMC is providing efficient hospital services when compared with WUESTHOFF and other markets where competition is a factor. Of the zip codes addressed in WUESTHOFF’s travel study, there is no zip code in Brevard County that is more than 30 minutes from an existing hospital. Of the fourteen intersections tested, the addition of the proposed project would decrease travel times from only three intersections, with the greatest decrease in travel time being only nine minutes. Thus, the construction of WUESTHOFF’s proposed facility would not significantly increase access for Brevard County patients. HRMC delivers the majority of Medicaid babies in the county and is also a contract provider for Children’s Medical Services. HRMC worked with the Public Health Department to develop a better system for giving prenatal care and delivery to Medicaid and indigent mothers. HRMC offered to subsidize the salary of a doctor, and eventually two midwives, to work with the Public Health Department for this purpose. HRMC’s HOPE programs provides access to Medicaid and indigent patients. HOPE clinic and HOPE van expenses are direct expenses of HRMC. In addition to medical care, the HOPE program also provides free medication to those who cannot afford it. HRMC’s HOPE van provides services to the homeless every Tuesday, seeing as many as 40 patients each visit. Patients are provided with an examination, medications, and referrals to specialists or the hospital, if necessary. This care is provided at no charge to the patient. HRMC’s HOPE program was given the Nova award by the American Hospital Association for its ground-breaking effort in community health improvement. It is the only program in Florida which has been so recognized. The HOPE program has also received the Heartland Award from Governor Chiles for its work at improving the status of life in Florida. HRMC supports a variety of agencies to provide care to indigent AIDS patients. HRMC provides services to a nonprofit outpatient AIDS services organization, which offers reduced-rate and free lab services. HRMC, along with the Public Health Unit, funded a dental clinic for the AIDS organization. The hospitals in Brevard County do a good job in regard to taking care of the patients who are incapable of paying, with HRMC going the extra mile to provide services to the poor. There was no evidence that persons in need of quality, general acute care services are not able to access those services at any existing provider in Brevard County. There is no lack of availability or access to general acute care services based on either geographic or financial grounds. WUESTHOFF’s proposed 50- bed general acute care hospital is not needed to accomplish this. The Ability Of The Applicant To Provide Quality Of Care And The Applicant’s Record Of Providing Quality Of Care: Section 408.035(1)(c), Florida Statutes. It is clear that WUESTHOFF is capable of providing quality inpatient health care services. However, it is found that HRMC is providing higher quality services (and at a lower cost). As shown in AHCA’s hospital report card, WUESTHOFF performed in the lowest 15 percent in the State in 5 of 6 serviced lines where mortality was measured. On the other hand, HRMC was indicated to be consistently a low-charge provider, operating within expected outcomes. HRMC’s C-section rate is significantly lower than WUESTHOFF’s, and its VBAC rate much higher. The results of a low C-section rate are lower lengths of stay and less risk to both mom and baby. The Availability And Adequacy Of Other Health Care Facilities And Services In The District Which May Serve As Alternatives For The Services To Be Provided By The Applicant: Section 408.035(1)(d), Florida Statutes. WUESTHOFF already has three home health locations, 8 or walk-in clinics, a hospice, a durable medical equipment business, an ambulatory surgery center, 2 freestanding diagnostic centers, and outpatient labs in Brevard County. In addition, WUESTHOFF plans to construct a new outpatient and diagnostic center in south Brevard County. In addition, inpatient surgeries have shifted to private, for-profit outpatient centers and ambulatory surgery centers that have opened in the last five years in Brevard County. The competent, substantial evidence presented at the final hearing demonstrates that within Brevard County, there are available and adequate alternatives to the inpatient services proposed by WUESTHOFF. First, as discussed above, the existing providers of acute inpatient health care services have capacity to absorb any increase in the utilization of acute care services in the County. Second, data introduced at the final hearing demonstrate that overall utilization for the types of services WUESTHOFF proposes to offer are declining and demonstrate that residents are seeking out alternatives to inpatient hospital services. For example, from 1993-1996, inpatient surgery services in Brevard County showed a marked decline of approximately 20 percent, both in number of patients and procedures. This trend is not unique to Brevard County, but is occurring throughout the state. Health care providers are seeking alternatives to hospitalization, with procedures being performed in physician offices and ambulatory surgical centers. Likewise, there has been a decline in utilization of several other services WUESTHOFF is proposing for its 50-bed hospital. During the period 1993-1996, while the population of Brevard County was growing at a rate of approximately 2.4 percent per year, the rate of obstetric admissions as a percentage of admissions to Brevard hospitals declined. There is excess capacity for pediatric and obstetrical services in Brevard County. The average daily census in obstetrical beds has dropped from approximately 34 patients per day to approximately 29 per day. With 66 reported available obstetrical beds in Brevard County, that means that on any day only 44 percent of the available capacity is being utilized. Likewise, pediatric census has gone from approximately 32 patients per day to only about 25. With 78 reported pediatrics beds, a demand for only 25 beds means that approximately 32 percent of available capacity is utilized. Probable Economies And Improvements In Service That May Be Derived From Operation Of Joint, Cooperative, Or Shared Health Care Resources: Section 408.035(1)(e), Florida Statutes. WUESTHOFF does not propose the operation of a joint, cooperative, or shared program with any other entity. WUESTHOFF contends that its application is consistent with this criterion because it proposes the sharing of certain resources with its main facility. But the construction of a satellite facility will result in the duplication of certain services. It is actually less efficient for a hospital to operate two campuses. The Need in the Service District for Special Equipment and Services Which Are Not Reasonably and Economically Accessible in Adjoining Areas: Section 408.035(1)(f), Florida Statutes. WUESTHOFF’s CON application does not propose to provide special equipment. This criterion is not met. The Need For Research And Educational Facilities, Health Care Practitioners, And Doctors Of Osteopathy And Medicine At The Student, Internship, And Residency Training Levels: Section 408.035(1)(g), Florida Statutes. This need is already being met in the community. WUESTHOFF, HRMC, and other Brevard County hospitals are already active in community training programs through their links with Brevard Community College and the University of Central Florida. HRMC has institutional training programs with the University of Florida, all Children’s Hospital, the local vo- tech, and University of Central Florida, in addition to other community programs. The Immediate And Long-Term Financial Feasibility Of The Proposal: Section 408.035(1)(i), Florida Statutes. The immediate financial feasibility of a proposed project is satisfied by showing that the applicant has adequate financial resources to fund the capital costs of the project and the financial ability to fund short-term operating losses. WUESTHOFF has demonstrated that its proposed project is financially feasible in the short-term. Long-term financial feasibility is established by demonstrating that projected revenues can be attained in light of the projected utilization of the proposed service and average length of stay. WUESTHOFF has not demonstrated that it can achieve its projected revenues by the second year of operation and has, therefore, failed to demonstrate long-term financial feasibility. It is impossible to tell from the information contained in WUESTHOFF’s CON application 8597 what the revenues and expenses of the new hospital will be. Staffing and supply costs associated with the ancillary building, but which will be used by the hospital when constructed and which amount to millions of dollars, are not broken out in the application. The application also does not show the totality of the costs associated with the 50-bed hospital WUESTHOFF seeks to establish. For example, provision for bad debt expense does not appear in the application, nor does the indigent care tax expense. Furthermore, the application does not provide for any administrative staff for the new hospital, nor has all other necessary staff been provided for. If these positions are included under “other,” then the salary expense projected is not enough. Also, the salaries listed on Schedule 6 do not include benefits. The preopening expenses figure shown in WUESTHOFF’s application is reasonable only if the entire facility, the ancillary, outpatient, and inpatient tower would open all at the same time. It is very difficult to analyze the reasonableness of the financial projections because the revenues and expenses do not match. All the revenue from the proposed new facility appears to be included, but not all of the expenses. Schedule 8A shows that daily ancillary expenses are $470 at WUESTHOFF’s existing hospital but only $82 at the new, proposed hospital. It is implausible that the new hospital would have costs this much lower than the existing hospital. WUESTHOFF’s staffing projections do not account for a significant number of nursing and other staff necessary for the operation of the facility as a hospital. The projections only address nursing positions for the 50-bed, inpatient tower. The schedule fails to show those nurses assigned to the ancillary services areas in the outpatient diagnostic center who will be working with inpatients. For example, the scrub nurses in the emergency department who will be working on inpatients are not included in the schedule, and the nurses working in radiology who will be caring for inpatients are not shown. The schedule fails to include a director of nursing at the proposed hospital facility. Although WUESTHOFF claimed that it will assign a director of nursing when patient volumes reach 50%, it failed to include projections for that position in this second year projections, even though patient volumes are projected to reach 50% in the second year. Wuesthoff also failed to include benefits in its computation of salaries on Schedule 6, even though it expects to pay benefits at a rate of 20% of salary. Interest expenses are also significantly understated. The project is financed with 100 percent debt, which should amount to an interest expense of approximately $850,000.00 per year. However, the application shows interest in year one as $197,000.00 and for year two, $393,000.00. It is unusual that interest would be higher in year two than year one. There is no way to tell from looking at the schedules or assumptions in the application what the utilization of the new hospital will be, or how the patient days break out by payor. Therefore, reasonableness of the financial projections cannot be tested. Without additional information, one cannot determine if the average charges projected are reasonable. There are unusual projections, such as the charges during construction, year one, and year two, in the application which without explanation are not reasonable. The financial projections as to the whole facility are unreasonable. They show that WUESTHOFF, which currently makes $7 or $8 million dollars each year, will lose money once the new facility is open but that, in its second year, the new facility will make $6.9 million. Such a projection is unreasonable. By focusing only on the incremental effect of adding an inpatient tower to a presumed existing DTC, WUESTHOFF’s financial projections are not sufficient to allow a conclusion to be drawn as to the financial feasibility of the new 50-bed hospital. However, it would appear that, if those schedules had been presented, they would have shown the new satellite hospital, taken in its entirety, not to be financially feasible in the long term. The Special Needs Of Health Maintenance Organizations: Section 408.035(1)(j), Florida Statutes. The application is not made on behalf of an HMO, and this criterion is not applicable. The Needs And Circumstances Of Those Entities Which Provide A Substantial Portion Of Their Services Or Resources, Or Both, To Individuals Not Residing In The District: Section 408.035(1)(k), Florida Statutes. The CON application does not address serving a substantial number of persons or providing a substantial portion of services to individuals residing outside the district, and this criterion is not applicable. The Probable Impact Of The Proposed Project On The Costs Of Providing Health Services Proposed By The Applicant, Including The Effect On Competition: Section 408.035(1)(l), Florida Statutes. There is significant competition for managed care services in Brevard County. HRMC seeks and desires to enter into managed care contracts and is as competitive in the managed care arena as WUESTHOFF is. In fact, HRMC’s managed-care, patient volume is higher than WUESTHOFF’s. Managed care penetration in Brevard County has increased over the last five years and especially in the last two years. One particular HMO in Brevard County that is just getting started has received an acceptable managed care offer from HRMC. If they did not receive an acceptable offer from WUESTHOFF. Brevard County does not need another inpatient facility to allow the County to achieve higher levels of managed care penetration. There are no barriers in Brevard County to increasing HMO and other managed care penetration. Even though HRMC has an 82 percent market share in South Brevard County, that by itself does not indicate HRMC is charging non-competitive prices. In fact, HRMC’s charges are much lower than WUESTHOFF’s. Both the State of Florida and the FTC found that HRMC’s merger with Cape Canaveral when Health First was formed did not create an adverse, competitive effect on the marketplace. Because HRMC’s charges are so much lower than WUESTHOFF’s, the addition of the proposed hospital would not introduce price competition into the market. The majority of the proposed hospital’s patients are likely to come from South Brevard County-–an area where HRMC has an 82.5 percent market share. Thus, the bulk of the proposed hospital’s patients will come from HRMC. If the proposed hospital meets its projected utilization, HRMC stands to lose somewhere between $4 and $5 million a year. While that loss may not put HRMC into bankruptcy, it will have a significant adverse effect. The Costs And Methods Of The Proposed Construction And The Availability Of Alternative, Less Costly, Or More Effective Methods Of Construction: Section 408.035(1)(m), Florida Statutes. WUESTHOFF’s proposal to establish a 50-bed, general, acute care hospital entails the construction of a 3-story, 50-bed patient tower adjoining an outpatient diagnostic center. The outpatient diagnostic center, and not the inpatient tower, will encompass virtually all of the ancillary services necessary for WUESTHOFF to obtain a license to operate its facility as a hospital. As more fully discussed below, WUESTHOFF’s proposed 50- bed inpatient hospital will require substantial design modification and increased square footage in order to obtain licensure as a general, acute care hospital. The Applicant’s Past And Proposed Provision Of Health Care Services To Medicaid Patients And The Medically Indigent: Section 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes. The evidence showed that all acute care hospitals in Brevard County provide a fair level of Medicaid and indigent care in comparison to the remainder of the state. In its CON application, WUESTHOFF proposes to condition approval of its 50- bed, general, acute care hospital on providing 15 percent Medicaid and charity care, but did not provide a breakdown of each. There was no documented access problems for Medicaid or indigent patients that would warrant a new health care facility. Because indigent care is reported to the State based on a hospital’s charges, WUESTHOFF and HRMC could be doing the same amount of indigent care, but WUESTHOFF could appear to be doing more because its charges are higher. Whether Less Costly, More Efficient, Or More Appropriate Alternatives To The Proposed Inpatient Services Are Available: Section 408.035(2)(a), Florida Statutes. HRMC’s average charges are significantly lower than WUESTHOFF’s on both a per case and per patient day basis. HRMC’s costs are also lower, indicating it is more efficient. Therefore, the addition of another less-efficient, higher- charging WUESTHOFF hospital into the market would be more costly and less efficient than what it is there now. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that denial of WUESTHOFF’s proposed 50-bed, general acute care hospital is the least costly, more efficient, and appropriate alternative. The existing providers of acute care services in Brevard County are operating efficiently and have unused capacity that is available to serve Brevard residents. Data suggests that while the population of Brevard County is growing, there is no corresponding increase in utilization of general, acute care services. While Brevard enjoys a proportionately higher growth rate than the rest of the State, the growth does not translate into higher utilization of general acute care services. Further, the age 65+ population, those most likely to use hospital services, has experienced an annual growth of approximately 3.7 percent between 1990-1996, which is higher than the overall rate of growth for Brevard. While there has been a significant growth in the number of elderly and Medicaid eligible population, only approximately percent of those eligible for Medicaid in the 14 zip codes targeted as the service area of WUESTHOFF’s proposed hospital actually use hospital services. In 1993, the last year of available data, the actual county-wide use rate for Medicaid eligible residents was only 8.4 percent. This is expected to remain constant in subsequent years, as the demand for inpatient acute care services has not increased, but has in fact decreased. There is insufficient utilization of the inpatient acute care services which already exist in Brevard County, with approximately 50 percent of the available beds unoccupied. The addition of another health care facility will not improve access, improve delivery of services, or make services available to a population that is not presently being adequately and appropriately served by existing providers. In a market where inpatient volume is going down, length of stay is going down, and utilization is going down, it does not make sense to spend scarce dollars on new inpatient services. Whether The Existing Facilities Providing Similar Inpatient Services Are Being Used In An Appropriate And Efficient Manner: Section 408.035(2)(b), Florida Statutes. The greater weight of the evidence established that there is available capacity for inpatient services like those proposed by WUESTHOFF at the existing, general, acute care facilities in Brevard County. WUESTHOFF did not demonstrate that any provider is suffering from over utilization or that any patient has not been able to access general acute care services when such services were necessary. On the contrary, there was a consensus among the experts, even WUESTHOFF’s experts, that there is no problem with geographic or financial access to existing providers. Between 1993 and 1996, hospital utilization dropped from 63 percent to 52 percent. AT WUESTHOFF’s Rockledge campus, utilization fell from a high of 63 percent in 1993, to approximately 46 percent in 1996. During this same period, the population of Brevard County grew at a rate of approximately 2.4 percent per year, which was proportionately higher than for the rest of the state. At HRMC, its occupancy dropped, but not quite as dramatically. Between 1993 and 1996, HRMC’s occupancy went from 67 percent to approximately 62 percent. The satellite facility, operated by HRMC in Palm Bay and located in the same service area where WUESTHOFF proposes to construct its 50-bed general acute care hospital, has never experienced occupancy above 31 percent. That Patients Will Experience Serious Problems In Obtaining Inpatient Care Of The Type Proposed, In The Absence Of The Proposed New Service: Section 408.035(2)(d), Florida Statutes. There was no evidence to show that any population group in Brevard County is unable to access quality health care services at any of the subdistrict’s existing facilities. Further, WUESTHOFF failed to establish that its proposed facility was needed to provide general acute care services not currently provided or currently accessible to residents of south Brevard County. WUESTHOFF maintains that participants in managed care contracts may not be able to access WUESTHOFF’s general acute care services without approval of the proposed project, but there was not demonstration that those individuals would not otherwise have access to quality affordable health care in Brevard County. WUESTHOFF also failed to demonstrate that participants in managed care programs are a “traditionally underserved” population group for a determination of need under not normal circumstances. CON Application Content And Procedures: Section 408.037, Florida Statutes And Rule 59C-1.008, Florida Administrative Code. The parties stipulated as to the timeliness of the submission of WUESTHOFF’s Letter of Intent, initial CON application and response to omissions. However, the board resolution required by Section 408.037, Florida Statutes, and Rule 59C-1.008, Florida Administrative Code, is fatally defective. The applicant is required to provide certification that its governing board enacted a resolution to license and operate the proposed facility. In this case, the proposed 50- bed, inpatient tower cannot be licensed by the applicant as a hospital. In order to obtain hospital licensure, the proposed project would necessarily include the $35+ million that WUESTHOFF proposes to spend on its outpatient diagnostic center. WUESTHOFF’s CON application also fails to comply with Section 408.037(2)(c), which requires detailed financial projection including a statement of the revenues and expense for the period of construction and the first two years of operation after completion of the project. The proposed project is a “hospital.” The hospital will report all of the revenues and expenses of the inpatient and outpatients to the state in its actual report, and those same projected revenues and expenses should be in the pro forma of a certificate of need application for a new hospital project. Instead, the projected revenues and expenses in the pro formas take an “incremental” approach and focus only on the 50-bed tower and an unspecified portion of the diagnostic center. WUESTHOFF’s own financial expert admitted that one cannot determine the revenues and expenses of the new hospital from the information contained in the application. AHCA does not have sufficient information with respect to revenues and expenditures in the pro formas to determine the financial feasibility of the hospital project. The pro formas do not meet the statutory requirement contained in 408.037(2)(c), Florida Statutes, and are fatally defective. Neither AHCA nor its predecessor agency ever have approved a CON to establish a hospital without ever seeing projections of the revenues and expenses of the hospital as a whole. Additions to hospitals have been approved on a strictly incremental basis; but, in those cases, the revenues and expenses of the hospital as a whole already had been reviewed and approved. Inpatient cardiac catheterization programs also have been approved, based on a strictly incremental review of the financial impact of converting from an existing outpatient to an inpatient program. But there is a meaningful difference between the approval of a program in a hospital facility that already has been reviewed and approved as a whole and what WUESTHOFF is seeking to have done in this case. There also is a difference between treating the costs of an existing and operating facility or program as being “sunk” and treating the $35 million capital cost and additional operating costs of the proposed DTC in this case as being “sunk.” In the former, the costs have been or are being spent and truly are “sunk”; in the latter, despite WUESTHOFF’s assurances, the DTC money has not been spent, and the DTC has not been established. Indeed, the decision properly before AHCA in this case is whether those expenditures should be made for purposes of establishing a hospital. If not, the hospital should not be approved. If WUESTHOFF still wants to build and operate its proposed $35 million anyway, as it has assured AHCA that it will do, it is free to do so. Criteria Used In Evaluation Of CON Applications: Rule 59C-1.030, Florida Administrative Code. AHCA’s rules set forth additional criteria used to evaluate CON applications which focus on whether there is a need for the proposed service in the population to be served and whether the proposed project is accessible to those in need of the service. The evidence in this case showed that there was no unmet need in Brevard County for inpatient, general, acute care services and that the target population is adequately served by the existing providers of general acute care services. Furthermore, the evidenced showed that the anticipated population growth in Brevard County is not likely to generate additional numbers of inpatient admissions, based on the decline in utilization during a period when Brevard County was experiencing unprecedented annual growth at a rate of 2.4 percent overall and 3.7 percent in the 65+ population. Any attendant increase in demand for inpatient general acute care services can be easily accommodated by the existing providers in Brevard County. The rule also examines the extent to which an applicant provides services to Medicare, Medicaid, and the medically indigent patients. The evidence showed that WUESTHOFF provides a fair amount of general acute care services to Medicare, Medicaid, and charity patients, as do the other existing providers in Brevard County. Hospital Physical Plant Requirements For Licensure: Rule 59A-3, Florida Administrative Code. WUESTHOFF’s 50-bed, general, acute care hospital, as proposed, cannot meet licensure standards without significant adjustment to the design to bring it into compliance with the licensure rules. Rule 59A-3.081(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, specifically requires that the critical care nurse’s station be situated so that nurses have visual control of each patient from common spaces. The schematics provided by WUESTHOFF indicate that there is no visual control of two patient rooms located in the northwest end of the unit. As to functionality of the space, there is no observation from the nurses station to trauma rooms located at the end of the unit and inadequate proximity to support spaces, such as soiled and clean utility and med prep, to the trauma rooms. Seriously injured patients would necessarily be transported up to surgery through what would be public corridor spaces in order to access elevators and then through additional public spaces on the second floor. Inpatient access to the CT scan room and MRI room appears to be made through a narrow, 5-foot wide corridor. Hospital licensure regulations require inpatient access through an 8-foot corridor. The only 8-foot corridors available for inpatient use, the service corridor off the housekeeping and staff facilities area to the rear of the unit and the corridor located between radiology and dietary, do not appear to be appropriate means for inpatients to access these rooms. On the third floor of the facility, WUESTHOFF proposes to locate an aerobics and exercise room, directly above the second floor patient recovery area and two of the operating rooms. With an exercise area located above such critical areas, there is the possibility that vibrations would transmit to operating room lights, ceiling mounted microscopes, and other instruments. It would be costly to sufficiently stiffen the structure to minimize vibrations. In order to bring the proposed project into compliance with hospital licensure regulations, material changes to the plans must be made, which will necessarily increase the square footage of the facility. The square footage of the facility would likely be increased by approximately 5,000 square feet, and many of the areas would have to be significantly redesigned to accommodate concerns with compliance to ADA and hospital licensure regulations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter the final order denying WUESTHOFF’s CON 8597. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: David C. Ashburn, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley, Valdes-Fauli and Stewart, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 830 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark Thomas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Office of the General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Stephen K. Boone, Esquire Boone, Boone, Boone and Hines, P.A. Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Blank, Rigsby & Meenan 204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration should approve Petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need to establish a freestanding 44-bed long-term acute care hospital in Sarasota County.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: Parties Petitioner is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Select Medical Corporation (Select), which owns and operates 79 LTACHs in 24 states including a 40-bed LTACH in Miami-Dade County that was licensed in December 2002. The Agency is the state agency responsible for administering the CON process and licensing LTACHs and other hospital facilities. Petitioner’s Proposed LTACH In the first batching cycle of 2003 for “other beds and programs,” Petitioner timely filed an application for a CON to establish a freestanding 44-bed LTACH in Sarasota County. Sarasota County is located in District 8 for health planning purposes. The other counties in District 8 are DeSoto, Charlotte, Lee, Glades, Hendry, and Collier. Petitioner's proposed LTACH will be located in the city of Sarasota, which is in northern Sarasota County, close to the boundary between Sarasota and Manatee Counties. Petitioner projected in the application that its proposed LTACH would be operational by June 2005. The utilization projections in the application focused on the facility's third year of operation, which is the 12-month period ending June 2008. The specific mix of services to be provided at Petitioner’s proposed LTACH has not yet been determined; however, it is expected that the services will include the same "core" services found at other Select LTACHs. Those services are the treatment of pulmonary and ventilator patients, neuro- trauma and stroke patients, medically complex patients, and wound care. Petitioner’s facility will include a four-bed “high observation” unit in which the most unstable and highest acuity patients will be located. The nurse-to-patient ratio in that unit will be two-to-one, and the level of monitoring will be similar to that of an intensive care unit (ICU) in a general acute care hospital. Application Review and Denial Petitioner's application was designated CON 9657, and was reviewed along with the CON application filed by Petitioner for a 60-bed LTACH in Lee County. The Lee County application, CON 9656, is not at issue in this proceeding. On June 11, 2003, the Agency issued its State Agency Action Report (SAAR), which recommended denial of both CON applications filed by Petitioner. The primary basis for denial of the Sarasota County application described in the SAAR was Petitioner's failure to demonstrate a need for its proposed 44- bed LTACH. The parties stipulated that Petitioner's CON application satisfied all of the applicable statutory and rule criteria except those related to "need," and that the only issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether Petitioner established a need for its proposed facility.1 LTACHs, Generally LTACHs are health care facilities that provide extended medical and rehabilitative care to patients with multiple, chronic, and/or clinically complex acute medical conditions. To qualify as an LTACH, the facility must serve a patient population whose average length of stay exceeds 25 days. LTACH services are most highly utilized by persons in the 65 and older (“65+”) age cohort because those persons are more likely to have complex and/or co-morbid medical conditions that require long-term acute care. The typical LTACH patient is still in need of considerable acute care, but a traditional acute care hospital is no longer the most appropriate or lowest cost setting for that care. Most LTACH admissions are patients transferred from a traditional acute care hospital. It is not uncommon for an LTACH patient to be transferred directly from the hospital's critical care unit or ICU after the patient has been diagnosed and stabilized. Traditional post-acute care settings -- nursing homes, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), skilled nursing units (SNUs), comprehensive medical rehabilitation (CMR) hospitals, and home health care -- are not appropriate for the typical LTACH patient because the patient's acuity level and medical/therapeutic needs are higher than those generally treated in those settings. Indeed, unlike traditional post-acute care settings which typically do not admit patients who still require acute care, the core patient-group served by LTACHs are patients who require considerable acute care through daily physician visits and intensive nursing care which can average as much as nine hours per day. LTACH patients are often discharged to a traditional post-acute care setting such as a nursing home, SNF, SNU, CMR, or home health care. Thus, those facilities cannot be considered as "substitutes" for LTACHs, even though there is overlap between the diagnoses and services provided to lower acuity LTACH patients and higher acuity patients in those traditional post-acute care settings. The federal government has recently developed a Medicare payment system specifically for LTACHs. That system recognizes the LTACH patient population as being distinct from the patient populations treated by traditional acute care hospitals and post-acute care providers such as nursing homes, SNFs, SNUs, and CMRs, even though there may be some overlap between the patient populations served by LTACHs and those other types of facilities. LTACH services are reimbursed by Medicare at a predetermined rate that is weighted based upon the patient's diagnosis and acuity, regardless of the cost of care. This reimbursement system is similar to, but uses Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs) that are different than the DRGs used in the traditional acute care hospital setting. LTACHs fit into the continuum of care between traditional acute care hospitals and traditional post-acute care facilities. LTACHs are designed to serve patients that would otherwise have to be maintained in a traditional acute care hospital, where the standard reimbursement rates may be insufficient to cover the costs associated with a lengthy stay, or be moved to an alternative setting such as a nursing home, SNF, SNU, or CMR, where the patient may not receive the level of curative care needed. The recently-adopted, LTACH-specific system for Medicare reimbursements is expected to enhance the status of LTACHs as part of the continuum of care. LTACHs in Florida Currently, there are only nine LTACHs operating in Florida with a total of 683 licensed beds. The facilities are concentrated in six counties, Dade, Broward, Hillsborough, Pinellas, Duval, and Clay. There are an additional 182 beds which have been approved by the Agency but which are not yet operational. Those beds include a new 40-bed facility in Sarasota County (discussed below) and an additional 22 beds at the existing 60-bed Pinellas County facility, which is in the health planning district (District 5) immediately to the north of District 8. The Pinellas County facility is located in St. Petersburg, which is approximately 25 to 30 miles north of Petitioner’s proposed facility. The Florida LTACH facilities are well utilized. The occupancy rates at the facilities range from 54.6 percent to 99.2 percent. Four of the nine facilities have occupancy rates higher than 80 percent, and the average occupancy rate for all of the facilities is 76.6 percent. The average length of stay for all patients discharged from Florida LTACHs between July 2001 and June 2002 was 42.2 days. The 65+ age cohort accounted for approximately 77 percent of the LTACH discharges in Florida for that period. Relevant Demographics of Sarasota County The 2003 population of Sarasota County was 343,966, which was 25.8 percent of the total District 8 population. In 2008, which is the third year of operation for Petitioner's proposed LTACH, the population of Sarasota County is projected to increase by 6.2 percent to 365,439. Over that same period, the population of District 8 as a whole is projected to increase by 10.4 percent. The 65+ age cohort, which is the group most likely to utilize LTACH services and the group that utilizes LTACH services at the highest rate, represents 31.2 percent of Sarasota County's 2003 population and 31.5 percent of the county's projected 2008 population. By contrast, in 2003 the District 8 average for the 65+ age cohort was 26.9 percent and the statewide average was 17.5 percent. Sarasota County has a higher percentage of persons in the 65+ age cohort than do any of the counties that currently have an LTACH facility. Pinellas County, with 22 percent of its population in the 65+ age cohort (and 82 licensed and approved LTACH beds), has the highest rate of the counties with LTACHs. There are four acute care hospitals in Sarasota County, two of which -- Sarasota Memorial Hospital and Doctors Hospital of Sarasota -- are located in the city of Sarasota in close proximity to the proposed location of Petitioner's LTACH. The other two hospitals in Sarasota County -- Bon Secours Venice Hospital and Englewood Community Hospital -- are located in the southern part of the county and are 16 miles and 28 miles, respectively, from the proposed location of Petitioner's LTACH. In the CON application, Petitioner stated that the four hospitals in Sarasota County would "provide a solid base of patients" for the proposed LTACH. The application further stated that patients would also likely come from three hospitals in Charlotte County -- Charlotte Regional Medical Center, Fawcett Memorial Hospital, and Bon Secours St. Joseph Hospital - - and one hospital in DeSoto County -- Desoto Memorial Hospital -- even though the Charlotte County hospitals are almost 40 miles from the proposed site of Petitioner's LTACH and the DeSoto County hospital is more than 40 miles from the proposed site. The record does not reflect how many total acute care beds are in these hospitals, nor does it reflect whether any of the hospitals are trauma centers or whether they have any specialty programs that might impact (either positively or negatively) the potential LTACH patient pool for Petitioner's proposed facility. Approved LTACH in District 8 There are no LTACHs currently operating in Sarasota County or District 8. HealthSouth received a CON in October 2002 to establish a freestanding 40-bed LTACH in Sarasota County, but that facility has not yet opened. HealthSouth is behind schedule in the development of its LTACH. If HealthSouth does not "break ground" on its LTACH by April 2004, its CON will expire; however, as of the date of the hearing, HealthSouth's CON was still valid. The Agency expressed a concern in the SAAR that "the ultimate development of the HealthSouth LTCH [sic] in District 8 is uncertain" based upon legal and financial problems at HealthSouth. However, as of the date of the hearing, the Agency had not received any formal indication from HealthSouth that it is not going forward with the development of its Sarasota County LTACH. HealthSouth did not seek to intervene in this proceeding. Numeric Need for Petitioner’s Proposed LTACH Petitioner has the burden to demonstrate "need" for its proposed LTACH. The Agency does not publish a fixed-need pool for LTACHs, nor is there an Agency rule which provides a specific formula or methodology for determining numeric need for an LTACH.2 HealthSouth's 40 approved, but not yet operational LTACH beds must be factored into the analysis of need for any additional LTACH beds in District 8. Accordingly, it is necessary for Petitioner to demonstrate a numeric need for at least 84 LTACH beds for its application to be granted. The application states that “the primary service area [for Petitioner’s proposed LTACH] is Sarasota County and the broader service area includes portions of Charlotte County and DeSoto County . . . .” This service area encompasses an approximately 40-mile radius around the site of the proposed facility, and includes the eight acute care hospitals referenced above. In contrast to the application’s description of the service area, Petitioner’s expert witness in the area of LTACH development, Greg Sasserman, testified that the “actual” service area for Petitioner’s proposed LTACH would be a 10 to 20-mile radius around the facility. That distance is a more reasonable estimate of the distance that patients would likely travel for LTACH services. In its application, Petitioner attempted to demonstrate numerical need for the proposed facility under two distinct methodologies, one based upon "use rate" and another based upon "length of stay." “Use Rate” Methodology Petitioner’s "use rate" methodology projected the number of LTACH patient days that will likely be generated by Sarasota County residents based upon the utilization rates of LTACH services by the residents of the counties in which LTACH facilities are currently located. The utilization rates for the existing facilities were calculated by age cohort and were shown as a number of patient days per 1,000 persons in each age cohort. Those rates were then applied to the projected population of Sarasota County in 2008 in each age cohort in order to calculate a projected number of patient days that will be generated by Sarasota County residents in that year. Those patient days were then "grossed up” by an occupancy standard of 80 percent and then "grossed up" by an additional 44.5 percent to account for patients coming to the facility from outside of Sarasota County. The utilization rate calculated under this methodology is not a true “statewide” rate. The existing LTACHs are concentrated in only six of the states 67 counties, and more significantly, Petitioner excluded the facilities in Miami-Dade and Pinellas Counties from its calculations because their utilization rates were, according to Petitioner, “misleadingly conservative.” The 44.5 percent out-of-county rate was purportedly derived from the experience of the other LTACHs operating in Florida. However, the record does not include the raw data upon which that rate was calculated, and it does not reflect whether the rate includes the two facilities excluded from the calculation of the “statewide” utilization rate or the distances from which out-of-county patients are drawn to the facilities. Nor can the 44.5 percent rate be squared with the calculations of potential LTACH discharges from the eight area hospitals as part of the “length of stay” methodology (discussed below), which reflect only 24.7 to 26.8 percent of the patients coming from hospitals outside of Sarasota County.3 Petitioner's calculations produced an estimate of 29,654 LTACH patient days generated by Sarasota County residents in 2008, which translated into an average daily census (ADC) of 81 patients and a need for 101 LTACH beds; and an estimate of 53,431 LTACH patient days, which translated into an ADC of 146 patients and a need for 182 LTACH beds when the out-of-county residents were taken into consideration. Use rate methodologies are commonly used by health planners to project need for acute care beds and other types of services. However, in the LTACH context, a use rate methodology is not necessarily a reliable indicator of bed need because the existing LTACHs are not evenly distributed statewide and the utilization rates for the existing LTACHs vary significantly. The unreliability of Petitioner’s “use rate” analysis is further demonstrated by the fact that Petitioner excluded two of the existing facilities in the calculation of its “statewide” utilization rate. If the utilization rates of those facilities were included, the number of patient days and bed need projected by Petitioner would have been lower. “Length of Stay” Methodology Petitioner’s "length of stay" methodology projected bed need based upon an analysis of the discharges from the eight District 8 hospitals identified above. More specifically, the analysis focused on the discharges that Petitioner considered to be “appropriate” LTACH admissions based upon the nature of the patient’s diagnosis and the length of the patient’s stay at the hospital. Open heart surgery DRGs were included in the analysis, and DRGs “for people age 0 to 17, obstetric and gynecological care, newborns, alcohol and drug abuse, rehabilitation and psychoses” were excluded from the analysis. The application also makes various references to LTACH-appropriate diagnoses by Major Diagnostic Category (MDC) and "program area"; however, the specific discharges identified by Petitioner as being potential LTACH patients from the eight hospitals are not broken down by DRG in the application. Petitioner used two approaches to determine whether the patient is an “appropriate” LTACH patient from a length of stay perspective. Both approaches estimate the number of days that patients who otherwise would have remained in and been discharged from an acute care hospital would have likely spent at an LTACH, if one was available The first approach, which was characterized in the application and at hearing as the more “conservative” measure, only considered patients whose length of stay at the acute care hospital was at least 15 days longer than the geometric mean length of stay (GMLOS) for the patient's DRG (hereafter “the GMLOS plus 15 methodology.)” The estimated number of patient days produced by the GMLOS plus 15 methodology is the sum of the patients' actual lengths of stay less the GMLOS, which represents the number of days that the patients would likely stay in the LTACH facility. The second approach, which was characterized in the application as the more “aggressive” measure, considered all patients whose length of stay was more than 15 days (hereafter “the LOS plus 15 methodology”). The estimated number of patient days produced by the LOS plus 15 methodology is the sum of the patients' actual lengths of stay less 15 days, which again reflects the number of days that the patients would likely stay in an LTACH facility. The GMLOS is a statistically-adjusted value for all cases within a DRG that takes into account “outlier” cases,4 transfer cases, and other cases that could skew an arithmetic average length of stay. The GMLOS is calculated by the federal government. The only difference in the two approaches is that the GMLOS plus 15 methodology includes only those patients with considerably longer lengths of stay than expected for their diagnoses (i.e., 15 days in excess of the GMLOS for the applicable DRG), whereas the LOS plus 15 methodology includes all patients with long lengths of stay (i.e., in excess of 15 days) irrespective of their diagnoses. Patients who, because of co-morbidities, otherwise complex medical conditions, or frailties due to age, have lengths of stay in excess of the GMLOS plus 15 days are generally appropriate LTACH patients, particularly if the patient would otherwise remain in the ICU of the acute care hospital. In such circumstances, an LTACH would likely be the more appropriate setting for the patient from both a financial and patient-care standpoint. The GMLOS plus 15 methodology resulted in an estimated 13,263 LTACH patient days, which translates into an ADC of 36.3 patients and a need of 45 LTACH beds based upon an 80 percent occupancy standard. The LOS plus 15 methodology resulted in an estimated 21,753 LTACH patient days, which translates into an ADC of 59.6 patients and a need for 74 LTACH beds based upon an 80 percent occupancy standard. The patient days computed through the GMLOS plus 15 methodology and the LOS plus 15 methodology were characterized in the application and at the hearing as the lower and upper ends, respectively, of the projected LTACH patient days in the area to be served by Petitioner’s proposed LTACH. The mid-point of that range, 17,508 patient days, was then broken out by age cohort and was used to compute “hospital specific” utilization rates by age cohort. Those “hospital-specific” utilization rates were then multiplied by the projected future population of the respective age cohorts in the area to be served by Petitioner’s LTACH – Sarasota County and one-half of the population of Charlotte County – to project the total number of LTACH beds needed in 2008. No adjustment was made for out-of-county admissions because the hospitals included in both of the length-of-stay methodologies already included projected admissions from out-of- county hospitals. The end-result of the mid-point analysis and, hence, the end-result of Petitioner’s “length of stay” methodology was a projected need for 67 LTACH beds in 2008. Under the circumstances of this case, the GMLOS plus 15 methodology provides a more reasonable projection of LTACH patient days than does the LOS plus 15 methodology or the mid- point analysis. Specifically, the LOS plus 15 methodology is based upon the premise that physicians would be more likely to transfer their patients who would otherwise require long hospital lengths of stays to an LTACH “as soon as possible in their treatment regiment when LTAC [sic] beds are available,” but the record is devoid of competent evidence, such as letters or testimony from local physicians, that would provide support for that premise. Both of the “length of stay” methodologies appear to assume a 100 percent capture rate of the LTACH-appropriate patients by Petitioner’s proposed facility. The record is devoid of competent evidence demonstrating the reasonableness of that assumption, either with or without the HealthSouth facility in place. For example, the record does not include any tentative transfer agreements or other documentation that demonstrates a willingness of the local hospitals to transfer patients to Petitioner’s LTACH if it is constructed.5 Furthermore, based upon Mr. Sasserman’s definition of the service area of Petitioner’s proposed LTACH, it was not reasonable to include the patient days generated by discharges from five of the eight hospitals used by Petitioner in its “length of stay” methodologies, since those hospitals are outside of the 10 to 20-mile radius identified by Mr. Sasserman. Finally, there is no basis in the record to conclude that any overstatement of the bed need resulting from the inclusion of hospitals outside of the service area as defined by Mr. Sasserman would be offset by referrals from Manatee Memorial Hospital, which is located in District 5 approximately 10 miles north of the proposed site for Petitioner’s LTACH. The testimony on this point by Mr. Sasserman and Petitioner's Health Planner is pure speculation. Ultimate Findings Regarding Numeric “Need” The bed need projected by Petitioner through its “use rate” methodology is not reliable because of the significant shortcomings in that methodology described above. Of the two measures used by Petitioner as part of its “length of stay” methodology, the GMLOS plus 15 methodology is more reasonable than the LOS plus 15 methodology; however, neither methodology resulted in a projected bed need that is sufficient to account for HealthSouth’s 40 approved beds and Petitioner’s 44 proposed beds.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue a final order denying Petitioner’s application for a Certificate of Need to establish a 44-bed LTACH in Sarasota County. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 2004.
The Issue The issue is whether BayCare Long Term Acute Care Hospital, Inc.'s Certificate of Need Application No. 9753 and University Community Hospital's Certificate of Need Application No. 9754, both submitted to the Agency for Health Care Administration, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact LTCHs defined An LTCH is a medical facility which provides extended medical and rehabilitation care to patients with multiple, chronic, or clinically complex acute medical conditions. These conditions include, but are not limited to, ventilator dependency, tracheotomy care, total parenteral nutrition, long- term intravenous anti-biotic treatment, complex wound care, dialysis at bedside, and multiple systems failure. LTCHs provide an interdisciplinary team approach to the complex medical needs of the patient. LTCHs provide a continuum of care between short-term acute care hospitals and nursing homes, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), or comprehensive medical rehabilitation facilities. Patients who have been treated in an intensive acute care unit at a short-term acute care hospital and who continue to require intensive care once stabilized, are excellent candidates for care at an LTCH. Included in the interdisciplinary approach is the desired involvement of the patient's family. A substantial number of the patients suitable for treatment in an LTCH are in excess of 65 years of age, and are eligible for Medicare. Licensure and Medicare requirements dictate that an LTCH have an average length of stay (ALOS) of 25 days. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reimburses for care received through the prospective payment system (PPS). Through this system, CMS reimburses the services of LTCHs separately from short-term acute care providers and other post acute care providers. The reimbursement rate for an LTCH under PPS exceeds that of other providers. The reimbursement rate for an LTCH is about twice that of a rehabilitation facility. The increased reimbursement rate indicates the increased cost due to the more intensive care required in an LTCH. The Agency The Agency is a state agency created pursuant to Section 20.42. It is the chief health policy and planning entity for the State of Florida. The Agency administers the Health Facility and Services Development Act found at Sections 408.031-408.045. Pursuant to Section 408.034, the Agency is designated as the single state Agency to issue, revoke, or deny certificates of need. The Agency has established 11 health service planning districts. The applications in this case are for facilities in District 5, which comprises Pinellas and Pasco counties. UCH UCH is a not-for-profit organization that owns and operates a 431-bed tertiary level general acute care hospital and a 120-bed acute care general hospital. Both are located in Hillsborough County. UCH also has management responsibilities and affiliations to operate Helen Ellis Hospital, a 300-bed hospital located in Tarpon Springs, and manages the 300-bed Suncoast Hospital. Both of these facilities are in Pinellas County. UCH also has an affiliation to manage the open heart surgery program at East Pasco Medical Center, a general acute care hospital located in Pasco County. As a not-for-profit organization, the mission of UCH is to provide quality health care services to meet the needs of the communities where it operates regardless of their patients' ability to pay. Baycare BayCare is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BayCare Healthsystems, Inc. (BayCare Systems). BayCare Systems is a not-for-profit entity comprising three members that operate Catholic Health East, Morton Plant Mease Healthcare, and South Florida Baptist. The facilities owned by these organizations are operated pursuant to a Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) entered into by each of the participants. BayCare Systems hospitals include Morton Plant Hospital, a 687-bed tertiary level facility located in Clearwater, Pinellas County; St. Joseph's Hospital, an 887-bed tertiary level general acute care hospital located in Tampa, Hillsborough County; St. Anthony's Hospital, a 407-bed general acute care hospital located in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County; and Morton Plant North Bay, a 120-bed hospital located in New Port Richey, Pasco County. Morton Plant Mease Health Care is a partnership between Morton Plant Hospital and Mease Hospital. Although Morton Plant Mease Healthcare is a part of the BayCare System, the hospitals that are owned by the Trustees of Mease Hospital, Mease Hospital Dunedin, and Mease Hospital Countryside, are not directly members of the BayCare System and are not signatories to the JOA. HealthSouth HealthSouth is a national company with the largest market share in inpatient rehabilitation. It is also a large provider of ambulatory services. HealthSouth has about 1,380 facilities across the nation. HealthSouth operates nine LTCHs. The facility that is the Intervenor in this case is a CMR located in Largo, Pinellas County. Kindred Kindred, through its parent company, operates LTCH facilities throughout Florida and is the predominant provider of LTCH services in the state. In the Tampa Bay area, Kindred operates three LTCHs. Two are located in Tampa and one is located in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County. The currently operating LTCH in District 5 that may be affected by the CON applications at issue is Kindred-St. Petersburg. Kindred-St. Petersburg is a licensed 82-bed LTCH with 52 private beds, 22 semi-private beds, and an 8-bed intensive care unit. It operates the array of services normally offered by an LTCH. It is important to note that Kindred-St. Petersburg is located in the far south of heavily populated District 5. The Applications UCH proposes a new freestanding LTCH which will consist of 50 private rooms and which will be located in Connerton, a new town being developed in Pasco County. UCH's proposal will cost approximately $16,982,715. By agreement of the parties, this cost is deemed reasonable. BayCare proposes a "hospital within a hospital" LTCH that will be located within Mease Hospital-Dunedin. The LTCH will be located in an area of the hospital currently used for obstetrics and women's services. The services currently provided in this area will be relocated to Mease Hospital- Countryside. BayCare proposes the establishment of 48 beds in private and semi-private rooms. Review criteria which was stipulated as satisfied by all parties Section 408.035(1)-(9) sets forth the standards for granting certificates of need. The parties stipulated to satisfying the requirements of subsections (3) through (9) as follows. With regard to subsection (3), 'The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care,' all parties stipulated that this statutory criterion is not in dispute and that both applicants may be deemed to have satisfied such criteria. With regard to subsection (4), 'The availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation,' it was stipulated that both applicants have all resources necessary in terms of both capital and staff to accomplish the proposed projects, and therefore, both applicants satisfy this requirement. With regard to subsection (5), 'The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district,' it was stipulated that both proposals will increase access. Currently there are geographic, financial and programmatic barriers to access in District 5. The only extant LTCH is located in the southernmost part of District 5. With regard to subsection (6), 'The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal,' the parties stipulated that UCH satisfied the criterion. With regard to BayCare, it was stipulated that its proposal satisfied the criterion so long as BayCare can achieve its utilization projections and obtain Medicare certification as an LTCH and thus demonstrate short-term and long-term feasibility. This issue will be addressed below. With regard to subsection (7), 'The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost- effectiveness,' the parties stipulated that approval of both applications will foster competition that will promote quality and cost effectiveness. The only currently available LTCH in District 5, unlike BayCare and UCH, is a for-profit establishment. With regard to subsection (8), 'The costs and methods of the proposed construction, including the costs and methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction,' the parties stipulated that the costs and methods of construction for both proposals are reasonable. With regard to subsection (9), 'the applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent,' it was stipulated that both UCH and BayCare have a demonstrated history and a commitment to providing services to Medicaid, Medicaid HMO, self-pay, and underinsured payments. Technically, of course, BayCare has no history at all. However, its sponsors do, and it is they that will shape the mission for BayCare. BayCare's Medicare certification as an LTCH The evidence of record demonstrates that BayCare can comply with Medicare reimbursement regulations and therefore can achieve its utilization projections and obtain Medicare certification as an LTCH. Thus short-term and long-term feasibility is proven. Because BayCare will be situated as a hospital within a hospital, in Mease Hospital Dunedin, and because there is a relationship between that hospital and BayCare Systems, Medicare reimbursement regulations limit to 25 percent the number of patients that may be acquired from Mease Hospital Dunedin or from an organization that controls directly or indirectly the Mease Hospital Dunedin. Because of this limitation, it is, therefore, theoretically possible that the regulator of Medicare payments, CMS, would not allow payment where more than 25 percent of admissions were from the entire BayCare System. Should that occur it would present a serious but not insurmountable problem to BayCare. BayCare projects that 21 percent of its admissions will come from Mease Hospital Dunedin and the rest will come from other sources. BayCare is structured as an independent entity with an independent board of directors and has its own chief executive officer. The medical director and the medical staff will be employed by the independent board of directors. Upon the greater weight of the evidence, under this structure, BayCare is a separate corporate entity that neither controls, nor is controlled by, BayCare Systems or any of its entities or affiliates. One must bear in mind that because of the shifting paradigms of federal medical regulation, predictability in this regard is less than perfect. However, the evidence indicates that CMS will apply the 25 percent rule only in the case of patients transferring to BayCare from Mease Hospital Dunedin. Most of the Medicare-certified LTCHs in the United States operate as hospitals within hospitals. It is apparent, therefore, that adjusting to the CMS limitations is something that is typically accomplished. BayCare will lease space in Mease Hospital Dunedin which will be vacated by it current program. BayCare will contract with Mease Hospital Dunedin for services such as laboratory analysis and radiology. This arrangement will result in lower costs, both in the short term and in the long term, than would be experienced in a free-standing facility, and contributes to the likelihood that BayCare is feasible in the short term and long term. Criteria related to need The contested subsections of Section 408.035 not heretofore addressed, are (1) and (2). These subsections are illuminated by Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C- 1.008(2)(e)2., which provides standards when, as in this case, there is no fixed-need pool. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2., provides as follows: 2. If no agency policy exists, the applicant will be responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory or rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, sub district or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Population Demographics and Dynamics The applicants presented an analysis of the population demographics and dynamics in support of their applications in District 5. The evidence demonstrated that the population of District 5 was 1,335,021 in 2004. It is anticipated that it will grow to 1,406,990 by 2009. The projected growth rate is 5.4 percent. The elderly population in the district, which is defined as persons over the age of 65, is expected to grow from 314,623 in 2004, to 340,676, in 2009, which represents an 8.3 percent increase. BayCare BayCare's service area is defined generally by the geographic locations of Morton Plant Hospital, Morton Plant North Bay Hospital, St. Anthony's Hospital, Mease Hospital Dunedin, and Mease Hospital Countryside. These hospitals are geographically distributed throughout Pinellas County and southwest Pasco County and are expected to provide a base for referrals to BayCare. There is only one extant LTCH in Pinellas County, Kindred, and it is located in the very southernmost part of this densely populated county. Persons who become patients in an LTCH are almost always moved to the LTCH by ambulance, so their movement over a long distance through heavy traffic generates little or no problem for the patient. Accordingly, if patient transportation were the only consideration, movement from the north end of the county to Kindred in the far south, would present no problem. However, family involvement is a substantial factor in an interdisciplinary approach to addressing the needs of LTCH patients. The requirement of frequent movement of family members from northern Pinellas to Kindred through congested traffic will often result in the denial of LTCH services to patients residing in northern Pinellas County or, in the alternative, deny family involvement in the interdisciplinary treatment of LTCH patients. Approximately 70 letters requesting the establishment of an LTCH in northern Pinellas County were provided in BayCare's application. These letters were written by medical personnel, case managers and social workers, business persons, and government officials. The thread common to these letters was, with regard to LTCH services, that the population in northern Pinellas County is underserved. UCH Pasco County has experienced a rapid population growth. It is anticipated that the population will swell to 426,273, in 2009, which represents a 10.1 percent increase over the population in 2004. The elderly population accounts for 28 percent of the population. This is about 50 percent higher than Florida as a whole. Rapid population growth in Pasco County, and expected future growth, has resulted in numerous new housing developments including Developments of Regional Impact (DRI). Among the approved DRI's is the planned community of Connerton, which has been designated a "new town" in Pasco County's Comprehensive Plan. Connerton is a planned community of 8,600 residential units. The plan includes space for a hospital and UCH has negotiated for the purchase of a parcel for that purpose within Connerton. The rate of growth, and the elderly population percentages, will support the proposed UCH LTCH and this is so even if BayCare establishes an LTCH in northern Pinellas County. Availability, utilization, and quality of like services in the district, sub-district, or both The Agency has not established sub-districts for LTCHs. As previously noted, Kindred is the only LTCH extant in District 5. It is a for-profit facility. Kindred was well utilized when it had its pediatric unit and added 22 additional beds. Subsequently, in October 2002, some changes in Medicare reimbursement rules resulted in a reduction of the reimbursement rate. This affected Kindred's income because over 70 percent of its patients are Medicare recipients. Kindred now uses admission criteria that have resulted in a decline in patient admissions. From 1998, the year after Kindred was established, until 2002, annual utilization was in excess of 90 percent. Thereafter, utilization has declined, the 22-bed addition has been shut down, and Kindred projects an occupancy of 55 percent in 2005. Kindred must make a profit. Therefore, it denies access to a significant number of patients in District 5. It denies the admission of patients who have too few "Medicare- reimbursable days" or "Medicaid-reimbursable days" remaining. The record indicates that Kindred only incurs charity care or Medicaid patient days when a patient admitted to Kindred with seemingly adequate funding unexpectedly exhausts his or her funding prior to discharge. Because of the constraints of PPS, Kindred has established admission criteria that excludes certain patients with conditions whose prognosis is so uncertain that it cannot adequately predict how long they will require treatment. Kindred's availability to potential patients is thus constrained. HealthSouth, a licensed CMR, is not a substitute for an LTCH. Although it is clear that there is some overlap between a CMR and an LTCH, HealthSouth, for instance, does not provide inpatient dialysis, will not accept ventilator patients, and does not treat complex wound patients. The nurse staffing level at HealthSouth is inadequate to provide for the type of patient that is eligible for treatment in an LTCH. The fact that LTCHs are reimbursed by Medicare at approximately twice the rate that a CMR is reimbursed, demonstrates the higher acuity level of LTCH services when compared to a CMR. HealthSouth is a facility which consistently operates at high occupancy levels and even if it were capable of providing the services typical of an LTCH, it would not have sufficient capacity to provide for the need. A CMR is a facility to which persons who make progress in an LTCH might repair so that they can return to the activities of daily living. SNFs are not substitutes for LTCHs although there could be some limited overlap. SNFs are generally not appropriate for patients otherwise eligible for the type of care provided by an LTCH. They do not provide the range of services typically provided by an LTCH and do not maintain the registered nurse staffing levels required for delivering the types of services needed for patients appropriate for an LTCH. LTCHs are a stage in the continuum of care. Short- term acute care hospitals take in very sick or injured patients and treat them. Thereafter, the survivors are discharged to home, or to a CMR, or to a SNF, or, if the patients are still acutely ill but stable, and if an LTCH is available, to an LTCH. As noted above, currently in northern Pinellas County and in Pasco County, there is no reasonable access to an LTCH. An intensive care unit (ICU) is, ideally, a treatment phase that is short. If treatment has been provided in an ICU and the patient remains acutely ill but stable, and is required to remain in the ICU because there is no alternative, greater than necessary costs are incurred. Staff in an ICU are not trained or disposed to provide the extensive therapy and nursing required by patients suitable for an LTCH and are not trained to provide support and training to members of the patient's family in preparation for the patient's return home. The majority of patients suitable for an LTCH have some potential for recovery. This potential is not realized in an ICU, which is often counterproductive for patients who are stabilized but who require specialized long-term acute care. Patients who remain in an ICU beyond five to seven days have an increased morbidity/mortality rate. Maintaining patients suitable for an LTCH in an ICU also results in over-utilization of ICU services and can cause congestion when ICU beds are fully occupied. UCH in Pasco County, and to a lesser extent BayCare in northern Pinellas County, will bring to the northern part of District 5 services which heretofore have not been available in the district, or, at least, have not been readily available. Persons in Pasco County and northern Pinellas County, who would benefit from a stay in an LTCH, have often had to settle for some less appropriate care situation. Medical Treatment Trends LTCHs are relatively new cogs in the continuum of care and the evidence indicates that they will play an important role in that continuum in the future. The evidence of record demonstrates that the current trend in medical treatment is to find appropriate post acute placements in an LTCH setting for those patients in need of long-term acute care beyond the stay normally experienced in a short-term acute care hospital. Market conditions The federal government's development of the distinctive PPS for LTCHs has created a market condition which is favorable for the development of LTCH facilities. Although the Agency has not formally adopted by rule a need methodology specifically for LTCHs, by final order it has recently relied upon the "geometric mean length of stay + 7" (GMLOS +7) need methodology. The GMLOS +7 is a statistical calculation used by CMS in administering the PPS reimbursement system in determining an appropriate reimbursement for a particular "diagnostic related group" (DRG). Other need methodologies have been found to be unsatisfactory because they do not accurately reflect the need for LTCH services in areas where LTCH services are not available, or where the market for LTCH services is not competitive. GMLOS +7 is the best analysis the Agency has at this point. Because the population for whom an LTCH might be appropriate is unique, and because it overlaps with other populations, finding an algebraic need expression is difficult. An acuity measure would be the best marker of patient appropriateness, but insufficient data are available to calculate that. BayCare's proposal will provide beneficial competition for LTCH services in District 5 for the first time and will promote geographic, financial, and programmatic access to LTCH services. BayCare, in conducting its need calculations used a data pool from Morton Plant Hospital, Mease Dunedin Hospital, Mease Countryside Hospital, Morton Plant North Bay Hospital, and St. Anthony's Hospital for the 12 months ending September 2003. The hospitals included in the establishment of the pool are hospitals that would be important referral sources for BayCare. BayCare then identified 160 specific DRGs historically served by existing Florida LTCHs, or which could have been served by Florida LTCHs, and lengths of stay greater than the GMLOS for acute care patients, and compared them to the data pool. This resulted in a pool of 871 potential patients. The calculation did not factor in the certain growth in the population of the geographic area, and therefore the growth of potential LTCH patients. BayCare then applied assumptions based on the proximity of the referring hospitals to the proposed LTCH to project how many of the patients eligible for LTCH services would actually be referred and admitted to the proposed LTCH. That exercise resulted in a projected potential volume of 20,265 LTCH patient days originating just from the three District 5 BayCare hospitals and the two Mease hospitals. BayCare assumes, and the assumption is found to be reasonable, that 25 percent of their LTCH volume will originate from facilities other than BayCare or Mease hospitals. Adding this factor resulted in a total of 27,020 patient days for a total net need of 82 beds at 90 percent occupancy. BayCare's GMLOS +7 bed need methodology reasonably projects a bed need of 82 beds based on BayCare's analysis of the demand arising from the three District 5 BayCare hospitals and the two Mease hospitals. UCH provided both a GMLOS +7 and a use rate analysis. The use rate analysis is suspect in a noncompetitive environment and, obviously, in an environment where LTCHs do not exist. UCH's GMLOS +7 analyses resulted in the identification of a need for 159 additional LTCH beds in District 5. This was broken down into a need of 60 beds in Pasco County and 99 additional beds in Pinellas County. There is no not-for-profit LTCH provider in District The addition of BayCare and UCH LTCHs to the district will meet a need in the case of Medicaid, indigent, and underinsured patients. Both BayCare and UCH have agreed in their applications to address the needs of patients who depend on Medicaid, or who are indigent, or who have private insurance that is inadequate to cover the cost of their treatment. The statistical analyses provided by both applicants support the proposed projects of both applicants. Testimony from doctors who treat patients of the type who might benefit from an LTCH testified that those types of facilities would be utilized. Numerous letters from physicians, nurses, and case managers support the need for these facilities. Adverse impacts HealthSouth and Kindred failed to persuade that BayCare's proposal will adversely impact them. HealthSouth provides little of the type of care normally provided at an LTCH. Moreover, HealthSouth is currently operating near capacity. Kindred is geographically remote from BayCare's proposed facility, and, more importantly, remote in terms of travel time, which is a major consideration for the families of patients. Kindred did not demonstrate that it was currently receiving a large number of patients from the geographic vicinity of the proposed BayCare facility, although it did receive some patients from BayCare Systems facilities and would likely lose some admissions if BayCare's application is approved. The evidence did not establish that Kindred would suffer a material adverse impact should BayCare establish an LTCH in Mease Dunedin Hospital. HealthSouth and Kindred conceded that UCH's program would not adversely impact them. The Agency's Position The Agency denied the applications of BayCare and UCH in the SAARs. At the time of the hearing the Agency continued to maintain that granting the proposals was inappropriate. The Agency's basic concern with these proposals, and in fact, the establishments of LTCHs throughout the state, according to the Agency's representative Jeffrey N. Gregg, is the oversupply of beds. The Agency believes it will be a long time before it can see any measure of clinical efficiency and whether the LTCH route is the appropriate way to go. The Agency has approved a number of LTCHs in recent years and is studying them in order to get a better understanding of what the future might hold. The Agency noted that the establishment of an LTCH by ongoing providers, BayCare Systems and UCH, where there are extant built-in referring facilities, were more likely to be successful than an out-of-state provider having no prior relationships with short-term acute care hospitals in the geographic vicinity of the LTCH. The Agency noted that both a referring hospital and an LTCH could benefit financially by decompressing its intensive care unit, and thus maximizing their efficiency. The Agency did not explain how, if these LTCHs are established, a subsequent failure would negatively affect the delivery of health services in District 5. The Agency, when it issued its SAAR, did not have the additional information which became available during the hearing process.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that UCH Certificate of Need Application No. 9754 and BayCare Certificate of Need Application No. 9753 satisfy the applicable criteria and both applications should be approved. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP The Perkins House, Suite 200 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Robert Griffin, Esquire J. Robert Griffin, P.A. 1342 Timberlane Road, Suite 102-A Tallahassee, Florida 32312-1762 Patricia A. Renovitch, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez, Cole, & Bryant P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire Blank, Meenan & Smith, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Timothy Elliott, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building Three, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Alan Levine, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Christa Calamas, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Mail Station 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
